Matthew Yglesias (April 14, 2008) - Integrity? (Politics)

I'm more concerned about Davis fabricating the whole story.

Why would Obama, at this point, be participating in a "highly classified, national security simulation" where he was called upon to make a nuclear decision?

Why would Davis be there observing?

In the unlikely event this did happen, why does Davis feel comfortable publicly characterizing the outcome of the classified exercise?

Does he feel no obligation to keep classified information secure?

Posted by southpaw | April 14, 2008 6:31 PM

Republican from KY, like Jim Bunning. He's not sorry, but so what? His people weren't going to vote for Obama anyway.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 14, 2008 6:31 PM

I'm guessing, "I'm sorry I let the racism I usually try to keep quiet leak out to public like that," was deemed potentially counterproductive to Rep. Davis's future career prospects.

Posted by DTM | April 14, 2008 6:32 PM

This, of course, is what we would see for four years of the Obama Administration: all criticism of the President would be labeled "racist."

See, for example, the denunciations of Bill Clinton for being racist for using the term "fairy tale" in reference to Obama. That's obviously a code phrase, because so many characters in fairy tales are African-Americans, like Goldilocks, Snow White, and Rapunzel.

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 14, 2008 6:33 PM

Well. What can he say, really? "Sorry for being a racist. I'm a big, dumb racist."?

Posted by JH | April 14, 2008 6:34 PM

Everyone is a racist except me.

Posted by Fake Matthew Yglesias | April 14, 2008 6:35 PM

Either an outlandish racist or a towering moron. Most likely, both.

Posted by Will Allen | April 14, 2008 6:38 PM

This, of course, is what we would see for four years of the Obama Administration: all criticism of the President would be labeled "racist." - Stever Sailer

Nu? How is this any different than the current situation wherein any criticism of the Bush administration is labeled as "un-supportive of the troops", "un-American" or what have you (and with McCain, whom the media loves, it'd be even worse). The only way we wouldn't have this sort of situation is if HRC is president -- in which case the media would be so against her that she really would have problems doing anything.

That being said, it seems to me that Obama is indeed being criticized using racist dog-whistles, and it's really quite sickening.

Posted by DAS | April 14, 2008 6:39 PM

This "Steve Sailer" fellow has to be joking or a parody, right?

I mean, calling a 40+ year old black man a "boy" is, no two ways about it, clearly racist.

And Matt, to your post, I think JH & DTM have it right: Geoff Davis didn't want to straight up apologize for revealing his racism or tossing a racially-charged insult at Obama, so instead he had to apologize for impugning Obama's "integrity."

Posted by Reader | April 14, 2008 6:41 PM

Thanks Steve. Insightful. Yep, all criticisms of Obama will be labeled as racist. Jeez. And you are supposed to be a conservative opinion-maker?

Posted by otey2 | April 14, 2008 6:44 PM

I think Steve's just mad that this sort of thing is getting all the attention for being racist.

He started up an entire hate site with a community of racists, and he spends his days writing about how the world is full of inferior races prone to violence, and this jackass Davis just says "boy" once and the media can't stop talking about him.

Posted by DivGuy | April 14, 2008 6:50 PM

As if idiot boy's finger should have been on the trigger. OH MY GOD, it still is!! It's itching. I know it is.

Posted by rapier | April 14, 2008 6:56 PM

This, of course, is what we would see for four years of the Obama Administration: Steve Sailer publicly, painfully losing his mind.

I can't wait.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | April 14, 2008 6:57 PM

I imagine that Steve Sailer is disappointed that Rep. Davis actually felt compelled to apologize for his apparent racism. After all, the main motivation for the pseudo-intellectual architecture that he and his pals labor to assemble around their bigotry is their hope that open racism will be someday be publicly acceptable.

Keep waiting, Steve.

Posted by N | April 14, 2008 6:58 PM

I grew up in Kentucky. If "boy" is a racist slur towards African American adults there, I never heard it used in that context. It was demeaning and age-ist, but there's no need to fuel the race fire over this. Matt, I really enjoy reading your blog and respect the hell out of you, but I hope you regret this entry.

Posted by Slothrop | April 14, 2008 6:58 PM

Obama campaign quota: all supporters must play at least three race cards per week. Matthew still has two to go.

(Ooops, is the word "quota" racist?)

Posted by Al | April 14, 2008 7:00 PM

I agree that it is hard to infer attitudes from a single remark. They use "boy" a lot in the South, for black men and white men. What reveals racial prejudice is not a single occasion of use, but a pattern of consistently applying "boy" to black men, or doing so with a much higher frequency than one applies it to white men.

The crucial point in Davis's statement is what he is saying about Obama's finger on the button. It's interesting, because of all the many factors behind Obama's appeal for me, probably the most important is the finger-on-the- proverbial-button factor.

I really worry about Clinton, because her record shows a person constantly worried about projecting toughness, who always thinks she has something to prove. This has lead her to err far too much on the side of hawkishness. She also, in my view, tends to make somewhat rash statements immediately following some crisis - like the Bhutto assassination, the Kosovo declaration of independence, etc. - and doesn't give herself enough time to think and regain some balance. And in the end, she's all politics. So I worry that when her finger is on some button or other, she's going too be thinking too little about the security consequences of the alternative courses of action, and too much about how those actions will play politically.

Obama strikes me a sober, judicious, level-headed sort of guy, who knows who he is and isn't out to prove himself to anybody, who is neither too enamored of force or too averse to it, and who thinks carefully about the consequences of actions before taking them.

McCain seems really dangerous - an erratic and temperamental ideologue, with some serious gaps in his knowledge, and a tendency to act on the basis of spite.

Posted by Dan kervick | April 14, 2008 7:04 PM

I'm not a Southerner myself and never even heard of that Davis guy from Kentucky, but I'm wondering whether Obama and Matt aren't reading something non-existent into his words.

Based on TV shows, movies, and such, I have the impression that lots of Southerners often refer to adults---including whites---as "boy" when they're speaking casually, much just people in other parts of the country might use the word "guy".

If this really is the case---and there must be some commenters here from the South---then Obama's "anti-racism" hair-trigger might really end up annoying quite a lot of ordinary Southerners who don't think Davis intended any slur.

Posted by RKU | April 14, 2008 7:05 PM

If "boy" is a racist slur towards African American adults there, I never heard it used in that context.

I miss the days when morons couldn't find the Internet.

Posted by Gabriel | April 14, 2008 7:07 PM

I think the apology fits. I've known folks from the south who use 'boy' like I might use 'guy'. Only the speaker knows for sure, but its legit to think he realized he accidently stepped into a minefield rather than to take his comment as racist.

Posted by Chris | April 14, 2008 7:13 PM

To add to my "I grew up in KY" comment, I should have mentioned that it just sounded like normal dialog, not racist dialog. I can just as soon hear a Kentuckian referring to someone as "boy" and meaning it in an endearing way, as opposed to a slur. I don't think it was meant to be endearing in this context, but I just don't think it was necessarily racist.

I hate to break this news, but not all Southerners are racist. Sometimes Southern colloquialisms sound like the speech of a simpleton. But if one has read Faulkner novels, perhaps it has become evident at some point that incredibly intelligent, compassionate people can lie beneath simpleton exteriors.

Posted by Slothrop | April 14, 2008 7:19 PM

Again, the racially charged language aside, this republican rep either publicly disclosed classified information or he's just making it up. I think that's ultimately going to be the more powerful rejoinder to his attack.

Republicans claim to care deeply about national security, but they consistently undermine it to score political points.

Posted by southpaw | April 14, 2008 7:20 PM

We do have a snitty Al-bot on the day shift today, don't we?

As Ambinder noted, Davis was born three years before Obama. But who can know what the Montreal-born, Pittsburgh-bred adopted Kentuckian meant by calling an African-American man of about his age 'boy' as part of a yuk-yuk set of speeches to an audience of Kentucky GOPpers?

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 14, 2008 7:22 PM

Born and raised in the Deep South. The usage was racist, and I doubt Mr. Davis would have said it if his mouth hadn't been ahead of his brain. The apology seems more sincere to me than to Matt.

Posted by milo | April 14, 2008 7:26 PM

Gabriel, do you suppose you know more about the dialect of where I grew up than I do?

Posted by Slothrop | April 14, 2008 7:26 PM

I remember when I was growing up watching The Dukes of Hazzard, and the theme song came on: "Just Good Ol' Boys..." And I remember thinking "that theme song's racist" - it called Bo and Luke "boys" even though they were grown men! Plus, there was a confederate flag on the car! Racist, racist racist!

Posted by Al | April 14, 2008 7:29 PM

Some of you commenters are out of your minds. Using the word "boy" for a black man is well-known as a racist insult, especially in the South; if you don't know the history behind the slur then I truly, honestly, pity you. Some of the "race cards" in this campaign haven't been real but there's just absolutely NO debate about this one.

Posted by C.Michol | April 14, 2008 7:39 PM

I honestly did not know that "boy" is a racist insult. Can someone point me to a reliable source on the Internet where I can learn more about this?

Posted by Susy | April 14, 2008 7:42 PM

when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness" [sic]--then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. Dr. King, letter from Birmingham jail.

Any educated adult in America, with an infinitesimal knowledge of this nations history, who thinks that a white male in his fourties referring to an African American male also in his fourties as "boy" in public is not being somewhat racist is either racist themselves or flat out in denial.

Can anyone who is defending this man and his statement please give me another example where a white public servant has referred to his fellow white public servant in any way shape or form as "boy".

I am no saint but I know racism/racist comments when I see them. You don't have to be very smart or live in the south to know. I have never being to the south.

Posted by owl | April 14, 2008 7:43 PM

There's no way of looking into Davis' head to know what he was thinking, but writing this off as innocuous seems highly dubious. Are people seriously unaware of the traditional use of "boy" as a racially demeaning term? We're talking pretty elementary cultural literacy here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI's_100_Years..._100_Movie_Quotes

#16, between "E.T. phone home," and "Rosebud."

Posted by N | April 14, 2008 7:43 PM

Gabriel, do you suppose you know more about the dialect of where I grew up than I do?

Ordinarily I wouldn't think so, and yet I apparently do. It's a strange world.

Posted by Gabriel | April 14, 2008 7:43 PM

You know, if there are really this many people who don't know calling a black man "boy" is a well-established racist insult, I guess it's a sign of progress. If you didn't grow up around racist assholes, then maybe you never heard the term used that way. Of course, I didn't grow up around racist assholes, and yet somehow I know it's racist to call a grown black man "boy," but maybe I had a really good education or something.

Posted by too many steves | April 14, 2008 7:47 PM

On the post, it seems like Matt's being quite bitchy for continuing to demand more after the guy did the right thing by quickly and without any defensiveness or pretenses issuing a strong apology. To demand "No, I want to hear exactly what you did, it has to come from your lips, say it!" is a bit over the top, and frankly that attitude will only encourage people in the future to react defensively and refuse to apologize.

On the comment itself? It is an interesting story in the south about how the college football coaches had to adjust to integrating the teams. One of the things they talk about is dropping the use of the word "boy". They had something of a father-son type relationship with their players, and they were accustomed to using it all of the time, "atta boy!", "you boys did well", "the boys played hard today", etc. The black players, though, were fantastically offended by being called a boy, so the coaches had to change their vocabulary.

I recount that story because I think you see it a lot, particularly if someone does not hang out with minorities much. When you're in a diverse setting, you speak differently than when you're in a homogenous group - simple phrases like "what's wrong with you people", "that boy was tough, let me tell ya" or, to a woman, "get me some coffee, will ya" take on new meaning. If you hang out in diverse settings a lot, then you get used to it and adjust without even thinking about it. If you don't? Well, you can make a mistake and really offend someone you didn't intend to.

Is that the case here? Who knows. He could be a racist, or more likely, he could have been just taking a pot-shot at someone he did not like. Still, there is no reason to suspect maliciousness, and when someone apologizes for something real quick, to respond, "that's not good enough; I want to hear you tell me exactly what you did" is pretty disrespectful.

Father - son

Posted by Vermando | April 14, 2008 7:51 PM

Calling this statement racist is arrogant. Bar none. It assumes you have knowledge that you don't. Guaranteeing that it wasn't racist would be equally dumb, but what gives people the gall to act like authority figures on the intent of another man's comment when he was using a common colloquial term that refers to men of all colors and ages?

Seriously, please tone down the arrogance, boys.

Posted by Slothrop | April 14, 2008 7:59 PM

It's a Southern thing. Though an elected official should be more careful than most about referencing a black and only a black in the "boy context" when telling a story. That is a region where it is not "Our Troops in Iraq" but "Our Boys in Iraq" which is quite permissible. Even if some Jewish media pundit or Lefty who wouldn't be caught dead in uniform musters up some faux outrage about Southerners calling the majority Southern black, hispanic, white men in uniform aged 18-50 as "boys".

And Southern black men are even bigger fans of regularly including "boy" in their language for people of all races than Southern Whites.

But the story is more interesting than just the "boy" quote, and explains why the Congressman may have slipped.

Out of exasperation.

He said in his remarks at the GOP dinner that he also recently participated in a "highly classified, national security simulation" with Obama.
"I'm going to tell you something: That boy's finger does not need to be on the button," Davis said. "He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country."

That is troubling. Obama famously failed open on the matter of nuclear attack in an early debate.

He was given a scenario where ships bearing nuclear bombs unexpectedly blew up two major cities. Obama's response was that as President, he would focus on the 1st Responders, ensuring they had the respurces and tools to cope with "people in need". The others wisely said they were Commander in Chief, their 1st responsibility was to defend the nation and strike back at the enemy responsible for killing millions of Americans before other American cities were eradiacted. (All while Obama would be fretting about if there would be enough ice and disposable diapers to go around - as firestorms raged, radioactivity spread, and people wondered what city would be nuked next)

These national security exercises include key decision-makers and people considered plausible future decision-makers. Both military, and potential future civilian leaders of the military. With Obama, the odds on favorite to be the next President, an obvious selection.

The exercises are also useful to the experienced, vetted key national security people in evaluating and grading performance - then passing it on to military and Party leadership which people did well, which aspiring Admiral or politician messed up badly and got people killed in the scenario. By making bad decisions or failing to be decisive when the situation demanded decisiveness.

Kerwick raises the same point, though he speculates and spins his conclusion that surely Obama must be the wisest...But, like him, I'd like the voters to get an inkling on who has done well or badly in them. We know that in real-life evals, Governors Schwarzenegger, Barbour, and Jeb Bush were rated by Fed officials as performing "superbly" in disasters, while Kathleen Blanco failed open.
We heard Hill buzz that Biden "amazing how sharp that guy is when he stops talking about himself!", and that Mitt Romney, handled a simulated major overseas disaster involving terrorism affecting US interests and citizens "as good as evaluators thought possible",

If Davis is to be believed, Obama performed badly in a high stakes nuclear simulation be failing to make appropriate or needed decisions. If true, Davis wasn't the only one in the room of key people, not even the only Southerner or non-Southerner to be mentally thinking "That boy is in over his head" as Obama froze, made bad calls, failed open..

I'm sure McCain people were there, and Hillary people - watching whatever Obama did or didn't do in the simulated nuclear scenario, that got Davis so upset.

My guess is Obama did not do as well as the others, or Davis would have chosen not to tell it...But if Obama, by background, lack of skill, or temperment, cannot handle a fast-moving military or terrorist crisis - that is a significant black mark on his ability to be President.

Posted by Chris Ford | April 14, 2008 8:01 PM

"When your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness" [sic]--then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait." Dr. King, letter from Birmingham jail.

Any educated adult in America, with an infinitesimal knowledge of this nations history, who thinks that a white male in his fourties referring to an African American male also in his fourties as "boy" in public is not being somewhat racist is either racist themselves or flat out in denial or just not educated.

Can anyone who is defending this man and his statement please give me another example where a white public servant has referred to his fellow white public servant in any way, shape or form as "boy".

I am no saint but I know racism/racist comments when I see them. You don't have to be very smart or live in the south to know. I have never being to the south and I am just 22 years old with a college degree.

Posted by owl | April 14, 2008 8:05 PM

he's a republican.
what would one expect from a republican.
par for the course.

Posted by frankie d | April 14, 2008 8:07 PM

Reading some of the comments from Steve Sailer, otey2, slothrop and others I'm getting the impression that a white man from the south calling a black man boy is nothing but good old southern fun. I mean just think if Sen. Obama and Rep. Davis were any closer he could call him "his house nigger" and it be just fine.

Damm, you people have tried your hardest in every way for centuries to belittle and besmirch the accomplishments of African Americans and now that African Americans fell empowered enough to complain when they feel they are being disrespected, its there fault for being overly sensitive.

Rep. Davis was wrong to call a 40+ year old man, who happens to be 1 of 100 senators and who also happens to be leading the race for the Democratic nomination to be President of the United States a boy. It is insulting and degrading and his apology was a crock of you-know-what. Would any of you have suggested that it would be OK to call John McCain or John Warner or Jim Webb a boy, so why the hell is it a "southern cultural thing" to call Sen. Obama a boy.

ESPN's Ombudsman Le Anne Schreiber has a new article up where she discusses racial matters and sports, I think more than a few of her comments are also applicable here.

I've highlighted these four because they seem so relevant to the crap thats been said here.

I didn't know whether to feel encouraged that younger fans thought race was a nonfactor, or discouraged that history I still think of as recent and relevant seemed so ancient to them.

"We know so little about one another. Even scarier, we know even less about the fallout of our racist history."

"The way people react to racial topics should be the clue that they do want to talk about them at some level. We are ready to be past it, but before we can be past it, there is still a lot for us to talk about."

ESPN will keep encountering a phenomenon that has been dubbed "white fatigue" -- an impatience that wishfully equates issue-exhaustion with issue-resolution.

.
my emphasis

Posted by Loviatar | April 14, 2008 8:07 PM

Hey, we know Al and RKU are Clinton supporters, but does that mean they can't call things how they see them? You admitting that what this Rep. said is racist doesn't mean you're supporting Obama. Really guys, its okay.
Now, regardless of where you're from, if you are American and over the age of 20, you certainly know that calling a grown black man "boy" is racist. All of you idiots are surely kidding yourselves.

Posted by Ted2 | April 14, 2008 8:13 PM

Matt, you need to set aside your hip post-modern detached irony and feel some righteous outrage. What he said is unadulterated racism and he needs to be called, plainly and without hedging, the racist that he is. Unless the left and Democrats are willing to stop being so cool that they can't feel, and express, passion this stuff will just get worse and worse. This post was decidedly devoid of that and it isn't helpful.

Posted by dmh | April 14, 2008 8:14 PM

Loviatar,
I have found the ESPN Obudsman to be excellent. I don't know much about her, but her eloquence is refreshing. That last line about "white fatigue" is so perfect, yet so simple.

Also, anyone who thinks this "boy" comment is just your run-of-the-mill southern lingo is absolutely kidding themselves. Could you imagine this Rep. Davis referring to John Edwards as "boy" in that circumstance? If you say you can, then you are a liar.

Posted by Stacy | April 14, 2008 8:19 PM

I know I always call all my white homeboys nigga. Trying to racialize the word is just the height of latte-sipping limousine-driving Bible-hating liberalism.

Posted by Al | April 14, 2008 8:20 PM

"That is a region where it is not "Our Troops in Iraq" but "Our Boys in Iraq" which is quite permissible."

Could it be because the military is viewed as a group of young men aged 18-24? Second, when you call somebody your same age "boy" you mean to denigrate them. It just happens that it's one of the ways people used to put black men lower on the totem pole then themselves. So when a white senator in his 40's calls a black senator in his 40's "boy" it's fairly racist.

IMO slips of the tongue like this gives you an insight in how the person talks and acts around their friends. He wouldn't have used the term boy if he didn't use it in private.

Posted by JordanT | April 14, 2008 8:28 PM

But if Obama, by background, lack of skill, or temperment, cannot handle a fast-moving military or terrorist crisis - that is a significant black mark on his ability to be President.

Let me add experience. I don't doubt Obama is smart, but he has gone through life with no military or executive experience. The people he sits as "just about as experienced as him" - Lincoln and JFK, had military leadership and at least a decade and a half experience as a nationally elected leader or top executive experience (Lincoln as top exec negotiator between the railroads, farmers, mechants, banks, and state legislators.)

In fact, if Davis's story is true, Obama's lack of experience as an executive decision-maker is the most plausible reason for his falure in the two nuclear scenarios he apparantly did poorly in.

In military parlance, 2nd Lieutenant Syndrome. Seen in cocksure Golden Boys, and Golden Girls of high success in previous life that show up knowing they can handle anything as a junior officer. Who are then routinely and swiftly tested by commanders to "break them in" and show them the error of their inflated beliefs about matters of leadership and management and multi-tasking in stress and under deadlines that only come with more experience. A needed humbling so they ditch their arrogance and cocksureness so they are less likely to kill themselves or their soldiers..

Business is like that, too. As young engineers and lawyers arriving at the 1st level of management are convinced they are CEO material and disabused of that by their seniors.

Only in politics and in family owned businesses , where these restraints to get maturation and judgment are absent - can an Obama, a boy mayor of Cleveland, a 24 year old inheriting his Dad's African dictatorship, or a preening 44-year old narcissist get the reins of his dead parents law firm...

Obama may not be ready to be the Top Executive Leader of America. JFK had 4 years of war as a commanding officer, 14 years in national office, and people still thought of him "he could have used another 4 years" once he got in office.

Posted by Chris Ford | April 14, 2008 8:30 PM

Note how clever Chris Ford is. He refers to Kucinich as a "boy"! Thereby making it a nonracist term, since Kucinich is white!

Damn, you're so subtle, clever, and smart.

Posted by Zephyrus | April 14, 2008 8:37 PM

I'm an Obama supporter, and the guy's a jerk, but I don't think his racism can be assumed. "Boy" is a derogatory term that white people use on white people on a regular basis. I've been known to use it myself. The fact that racists once called black people "boy" doesn't make all usages of the term racist. It's just an innaccurate pejorative.

Obama is a "boy" by the standards of anyone older than he is. Like I said, in an inaccurate and pejorative sense, but not neccesarily a racist one.

Posted by glasnost | April 14, 2008 8:41 PM

Hillary's attacks on Obama's "elitism" are racist as well. They are a variation on the "uppity black person" meme.

And much of this would not be going on if divisive Hillary would not be in this race.

If Obama were going up against any other Democrat, the race would be more civil and the race card would not have been played like it has by the Clintons.

Posted by cm | April 14, 2008 8:43 PM

Would any of you have suggested that it would be OK to call John McCain or John Warner or Jim Webb a boy, so why the hell is it a "southern cultural thing" to call Sen. Obama a boy.

Yes it would be totally okay and normal and wouldn't surprise me one bit. That is the entire point I am trying to make.

For the record, I am an ardent Obama supporter and your statement that I am trying to "belittle and besmirch the accomplishments of African Americans" is incredibly misguided. I have lived in the South my entire life and most of my friends are equally as excited as I am about the Obama campaign, to a fault if anything.

Rep. Davis' comment was idiotic in my opinion. I don't agree with it one bit. It is possible that there were racist undertones. But to assume that it was racist without a doubt is completely asinine. And Obama would probably not agree with you playing the race card, at least that has been the tone of the campaign he has been running.

Posted by Slothrop | April 14, 2008 8:43 PM

"Even if some Jewish media pundit or Lefty who wouldn't be caught dead in uniform..." (farting noises continue for several paragraphs)

Like all great writers, our Chris Ford has a recognizable and distinctive style. Props, nigga. (The word nigga is by no means racial and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous PC claptrap enforced by the hook-nosed, gold coin rubbing Jewish, Jewy, Jewiest MSM and Leftists who have never enjoyed masturbating to Guns and Ammo)

Posted by Waingro | April 14, 2008 8:45 PM

damn, the fact that people can actually defend Davis' comment.....the only question here is, given the problem with determining good faith on the internet, should the rest of us be sickened by their dishonesty or appalled by their ignorance?

Posted by nick l | April 14, 2008 8:50 PM

nick,
i'm not defending his comment. just saying that the race card is perhaps out of line.

Posted by Slothrop | April 14, 2008 8:53 PM

Calling grown men "boys" is definitely common usage, not just in the south, but where I grew up (Queens). I call 40 and 50 year old friends of mine "boy" all the time.

But. I wouldn't call a black guy boy. Because of the nasty history. My grandfather would call blacks or jews "boy" but not xian whites, and I don't want to be like him. Like, I would call a white kid climbing a tree a monkey, but not a black kid. Maybe if three friends of mine were sitting around and two were white and one was black I might call them "you boys." But if the two whites left I would cut it out. But maybe one day I might forget, and accidentally call a black dude the same thing I would have called a white dude.

I don't know dude Davis well enough to say. Could be a throw back to old fashioned racist lingo he grew up with. Could be he was calling O the same he would call a white guy, and forgot the racial implication. Could be he was doing it on purpose. I don't know. I think all you persons saying how obvious it is aren't thinking too hard.

Posted by John | April 14, 2008 8:56 PM

One can't help but wonder how much The Wingnut Welfare Fairies are paying "Al" (et al?). It's gotta be a shitload of cash given his comments.

Posted by ed | April 14, 2008 9:04 PM

Kudos for your post, John. It's nice to see some objectivity.

Posted by Slothrop | April 14, 2008 9:04 PM

"When your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness" [sic]--then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait." Dr. King, letter from Birmingham jail.

Any educated adult in America, with an infinitesimal knowledge of this nations history, who thinks that a white male in his fourties referring to an African American male also in his fourties as "boy" in public, is not being somewhat racist is either racist themselves or flat out in denial.

I don't know who this guy is personally, I just know that what he is racist. Whether its intentional, I don't know.

However, can anyone who is defending this man and his statement please give me another example where a white public servant has referred to his fellow white public servant in any way, shape or form as "boy".

I am no saint but I know racism/racist comments when I see them. You don't have to be very smart or live in the south to know. I have never being to the south. BTW I am 22yrs old...with a college degree, if that matters.

Posted by Owl | April 14, 2008 9:09 PM

The redneck-whitebread-chickenshit-step on his dick- geek-motherfucker Kentucky Congressman just couldn't be racist. Heavens, no.

Posted by Trevor | April 14, 2008 9:14 PM

I will give him credit for a pretty decent apology here. Because, while the "boy" was offensive for the clear racist history, "that boy's finger does not need to be on the button" was clearly a bigger issue for the Obama campaign's overall message. An apology that said "It's wrong to call a man my own age "boy," but my point about him being incompetent to lead the nation stands" would just drag this on farther and farther. By framing the apology in terms of the national security issue, rather than the race issue, he did the Obama camp a favor.

I'm not saying this was Davis's intention. But in terms of overall usefulness for Obama's broader message, the following is a stronger apology than merely saying "oops, freudian slip."
Though we may disagree on many issues, I know that we share the goal of a prosperous, secure future for our nation. My comment has detracted from the dialogue that we should all be having on legitimate policy differences and in no way reflects the personal and professional respect I have for you.

Posted by Deborah | April 14, 2008 9:16 PM

It's not really a button anyway; it's more like a trigger, and at that level, it's actually just a bunch of index cards.

Posted by I was never here | April 14, 2008 9:35 PM

Oops, sorry for the repeated comments.

My lap top had connection problems so I wasn't able to see new comments including mine and tried several times as a result. Only to refresh the screen once and see that they were indeed posted.

Sorry...

Posted by Owl | April 14, 2008 9:37 PM

Slotrop/glasnost,

I'm responding to to both of you because you seem truly confused as to why some of us might be a tad upset when a white 49 year old Representative from Kentucky who happens to a member of a party that has repeatedly used something they call the Southern Strategy to garner votes and win elections would call a 46 year old black US Senator boy.

Your attempts to rationalize Rep. Davis comments do you no good, they make you look out-of-touch and more than a little bigoted. Rep. Davis comments cannot be viewed as anything but racist when they are placed in the context of his region's and his party's historical treatment of African Americans in this country. Your attempt to take it out of context and couch it as if its a "southern culture thing" to belittle one peers is one of the more frustrating ruses played by bigots and racist (we see enough of that in regards to the confederate flag). It has never been a friendly comment to denigrate a grown man as a boy, particularly when that man is your age peer and higher than you on the power structure.

Unlike Al and his ilk, I believe both of you really think you are being open minded, but you're not. What you're doing is helping to give cover to the bigots and racist who really believe that Sen. Obama is nothing more than an "uppity nigger", so I am going to suggest that you please reconsider your comments and place Rep. Davis' statement in the context of which it was said and the party of which he is a member.

Posted by Loviatar | April 14, 2008 9:51 PM

When is Yglesias going to apologize for having a Harvard degree and a gig at the Atlantic while writing "fourties"?

Posted by Jen | April 14, 2008 9:54 PM

To me, as a black man who grew up in the south, I look at this comment in one of two ways:

1) "Boy" = brash, impudent youngster who doesn't know what he's doing
2) "Boy" = shorthand for ni#%er

Either explanation is bad, but the second is worse. Calling a grown adult man (who actually holds an office senior to your own and is only three years your junior in age) a "boy" isn't what I would call a smart move and, speaking only for myself, I find it hard to believe that a white person who grew up in the south would be unaware of connotation number two. You might have an instance of an old black man might calling a young black man "boy" but that's almost certainly going to fall under choice 1. In most situations where I've heard "boy" tossed around, it's generally been closer in meaning to choice 2.

Now, Davis might not be a racist, but either way he said something that was condescending at best and racist as worst.

Posted by Mike P | April 14, 2008 9:59 PM

Maybe Matt's a Canadian at heart.

Posted by Angry Sam | April 14, 2008 9:59 PM

The people here defending Davis are seriously missing the point. It takes all of about 3 seconds to find out that people are pissed off about this because they consider referring to a 40 year old black senator as 'boy' to be racist. If Davis wants to sincerely apologize for his choice of words he has to publicly acknowledge the legitimacy of this complaint and apologize for invoking the racist history behind the term for many Americans. He can maintain that he didn't mean in that way, but he has to at least acknowledge the legitimacy of the complaint- and I don't see that in his response.

Posted by mpowell | April 14, 2008 10:03 PM

The people here defending Davis are seriously missing the point. It takes all of about 3 seconds to find out that people are pissed off about this because they consider referring to a 40 year old black senator as 'boy' to be racist. If Davis wants to sincerely apologize for his choice of words he has to publicly acknowledge the legitimacy of this complaint and apologize for invoking the racist history behind the term for many Americans. He can maintain that he didn't mean in that way, but he has to at least acknowledge the legitimacy of the complaint- and I don't see that in his response.

Posted by mpowell | April 14, 2008 10:03 PM

I grew up in the South and "boy" is not necessarily used as a racial slur. Ex: "He's a Good Ole Boy" used as a term of approval or affection.

Given past history, it is careless and insensitive for a white man to use it to refer to an Afro-American male. On the other hand, if Davis did look on Obama as a peer, he may have used it without thinking, in the same way he would have used it in speaking of a white man.

This code word bullshit and political correctness -- this attitude that people in Washington and New York DICTATE the mores and manners of society -- really pisses off the rest of the country. Matthew shouldn't make pronouncements on the intricate practices of Southern racism unless he has lived in the South for a while.

Maybe Davis is really a racist -- if so, that attitude will readily reveal itself if given a little time and a little rope. When it does, then attack him with cause and with evidence. The racists I've seen don't apologize, as Davis has done.

This uproar -- with little to support it -- will piss off people who have no liking for racists but who also don't like the liberal version of race-baiting. It smells too strongly of Chinese self-criticism sessions under Chairman Mao. It encourages people to vote against Obama just to show they ain't going to take shit from Northeast liberals with prejudices against the South.

Posted by Don Williams | April 14, 2008 10:04 PM

Johns comment wins the thread.

Posted by scottynx | April 14, 2008 10:04 PM

Just because you call white men "boy" doesn't mean it isn't racist to call a black man that.

Posted by SqueakyRat | April 14, 2008 10:05 PM

Funny, Slothrop, I was raised in rural Kentucky myself (I live in Louisville now), and it was pretty clear to me back then exactly what calling a grown black man "boy" was supposed to mean.

And it isn't just Kentucky, of course; it's not as if Americans are the only ones who figured out that one way of keeping perceived inferiors in their place is by infantilizing them. For instance, the apartheid-era South Africans mandating that grown black men wear shorts, like schoolchildren.

Posted by Brian | April 14, 2008 10:11 PM

Re Loviatar's comment "Rep. Davis comments cannot be viewed as anything but racist when they are placed in the context of his region's and his party's historical treatment of African Americans in this country. "
---------------
Go fuck yourself.

My family has been in EASTERN KENTUCKY on the Virginia border for 200 years. If you actually KNEW anything about the region, you would know that Kentucky was a UNION state.

Some of my ancestors fought in the UNION Army in the Civil War -- the nephew of my great, great , great grandfather, Achilles Williams, was blinded in the raid on Saltville , VA by a powder explosion.

A fair number of men from Kentucky gave their lives to free the Afro-American slaves.

Your blanket smear of their descendents as racists is ignorant.

Posted by Don Williams | April 14, 2008 10:16 PM

Davis said that he regretted that his words may have impugned Obama's integrity. So, if you think Davis meant no harm by calling Obama a "boy" , then what was Davis specifically regretting about what he said?

Posted by afferent input | April 14, 2008 10:18 PM

Could you imagine this Rep. Davis referring to John Edwards as "boy" in that circumstance? If you say you can, then you are a liar.
Posted by Stacy

The silly twat forgets Southerners nicknamed Edwards "Breck Boy" as a riff on the "Breck Girl" hair models.

Better than locals in NC who called him "pretty boy, faggot boy".

**********************
Could it be because the military is viewed as a group of young men aged 18-24? Second, when you call somebody your same age "boy" you mean to denigrate them.

Hardly. It is inclusive in the South up to 50 year old grandma reservists. Just as "Good 'ol Boys" refers to various movers and shakers of middle to old age as well as subset definitions of college partiers, etc.
"Boy" can mean comrade, "boy" can be used in an acknowledged inferior-superior relationship, or as a "diss" in argument where you are presuming the person is less experienced, less qualified - basically a rookie.. Or a harder diss that the person hasn't grown up and maybe is incapable of acting as an adult.
Blacks use it more than whites.
Then again, "nigger" is a normal part of conversation in many black social groups.

******************
Of course, this could also be a very sly Republican trick, knowing Northern Jewish media will have a fit over a case of "boy" in Flyover Country - to use them to publicize that Obama did badly again when confronted with making a decision regarding a national security crisis involving nukes..

Posted by Chris Ford | April 14, 2008 10:23 PM

Since even Kevin Drum recognizes that small town people clearly haven't for 200 years been clinging to guns and god out of bitterness, where do I go on the internet to see an apology from Obama on that?

Or is not just representatives from Kentucky or Senators from New York who have problems admitting when they are wrong?

Posted by Chad | April 14, 2008 10:26 PM

Of course this was a racist comment, and Davis knew that.

It seems that all anyone has to offer as criticism on Obama, whether that be Hillary or Davis, is either racist or trivial.

But they misjudge the situation. This is a big issue and change election. This isn't 2000 when people thought everything was going so great, nor is it 2004 when people still thought Bush was pretty good and the war wasn't a disaster.

This is 2008 which is more like 1992: people are fed up with things and want change. And when they do these stupid and trivial attacks do not register with most voters. When you are hurting you don't care who reaches out to throw you a lifeline...whether that person be black, or be described by small minds as "elitist."

You know who is on your side and who is not, and clearly Obama is on our side. Clearly, Hillary doesn't care about anyone except herself, and clearly, McCain is determined to vindicate Bush's legacy and do more of the same.

Posted by cm | April 14, 2008 10:29 PM

A fair number of men from Kentucky gave their lives to free the Afro-American slaves.

Don Williams,

I think your anger is a little misplaced, why don't you look internally at yourself for your support of a party which has for the past 40+ years used race as a means to divide this country. Don't preach to me about something your ancestors did, what have you and your party done for the past three generation; you and your party are the ones who are dishonoring the men of the Union who fought and died to keep this country whole.

So kiss my ass with your self-righteous claims about your ancestors, I wish you were 1/4 of the man that they were, at least they were willing to fight and die for their country instead of trying to rip it apart.

Posted by Loviatar | April 14, 2008 10:35 PM

Great post, Mike P. Everyone else please consider the source and notice he has taken the high road on playing the race card here. At the same time, he is not naive to the fact that it may have indeed been racist, which nobody should be.

This is great stuff here, Don W:
This uproar -- with little to support it -- will piss off people who have no liking for racists but who also don't like the liberal version of race-baiting. It smells too strongly of Chinese self-criticism sessions under Chairman Mao. It encourages people to vote against Obama just to show they ain't going to take shit from Northeast liberals with prejudices against the South.

I would never be driven so far as to retract my vote for Obama over these matters, but I do get frustrated at people who generalize people of a certain region and accuse them of all being neocon bigots who generalize others. It just reeks of hypocrisy. Thank you for saying it better than I could have. As an engineer, I don't necessarily have the greatest way with words.

Posted by Slothrop | April 14, 2008 10:36 PM

Steve Sailer, David Duke's towel boy, writes: "This, of course, is what we would see for four years of the Obama Administration: all criticism of the President would be labeled "racist.""

To stone-cold racists like Steve Sailer the Geoff Davises of the world should be given Presidential Medals Of Freedom whenever they open their dumbass mouths and utter their ignorant bullshit.

It's not that Steve Sailer thinks racism doesn't exist - he thinks it's scientifically justified and morally correct. If a President Obama were being sent watermelons each day by the RNC and someone pointed out that this was a racist act, Steve Sailer would disagree - and he'd start sending daily copies of "Birth Of A Nation" to the White House.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 14, 2008 10:41 PM

"I grew up in Kentucky. If "boy" is a racist slur towards African American adults there, I never heard it used in that context. It was demeaning and age-ist, but there's no need to fuel the race fire over this. Matt, I really enjoy reading your blog and respect the hell out of you, but I hope you regret this entry.

Posted by Slothrop | April 14, 2008 6:58 PM"

My black friends from the South tend to feel a bit differently about this. Just sayin'. I find a lot of Southern white people who don't think of themselves as racist and find this type of stuff normal (like Fuzzy Zoeller's or whatever his name is comment about Tiger Woods eating fried chicken) and then are all confused when black people consider it racist.

Posted by Reality Man | April 14, 2008 10:41 PM

Well, if the attitude of all the Obama-fanatics on this comment thread is remotely representative of what would be in an Obama general election campaign, that's REALLY bad news for poor Barack!

You have all these very strong pro-Obama Southerners like Don Williams and Slothrop being viciously insulted for being insufficiently "anti-racist", or perhaps having had great-grandfathers who might be suspected of having been insufficiently anti-racist.

Don Williams' point is exactly the one I was suggesting. If all the Obama supporters spend six months of a general election campaign shrieking "racism" at all white Southerners--plus working-class white northerners, Latinos, Asians, and everyone else in the 90% non-black electorate---that's not a smart political strategy.

Lots of voters will just think "If Obama gets elected, I'll probably get insulted like this for the next four years straight---no way!"

Basically, a 3% extra swing to McCain by the 90% non-black November electorate would probably sink Obama. And I'll bet the "annoyance" factor might be a lot bigger than 3%!

Here's a bit of friendly advice. It's not that easy to win people's votes by just insulting them all the time. Which is why professional politicians are mostly such a worthless bunch of toadying squishes.

Posted by RKU | April 14, 2008 10:49 PM

Re Loviatar's comment "I think your anger is a little misplaced, why don't you look internally at yourself for your support of a party which has for the past 40+ years used race as a means to divide this country. Don't preach to me about something your ancestors did, what have you and your party done for the past three generation; you and your party are the ones who are dishonoring the men of the Union who fought and died to keep this country whole."
-----------------

1) I'm not sure what Loviatar means.

I am not only a registered Democrat, I have worked for months as a volunteer for Democratic candidates in the past three Congressional campaigns and in Howard Dean's campaign.

Anyone who has read my posts here over the past year would know that.

2) So when Loviatar says "why don't you look internally at yourself for your support of a party which has for the past 40+ years used race as a means to divide this country." is he referring to the DEMOCRATS??

3) Similarly, when Loviatar says "you and your party are the ones who are dishonoring the men of the Union who fought and died to keep this country whole." is he strongly criticizing me for not being a REPUBLICAN??? Because the Union Army which fought to free the slaves was led by the Republicans??

4) After all, Abraham Lincoln was born and reared in Kentucky. Was he one of the racists too?

5) Or does Loviatar simply have his head buried up his ass and is posting about things, people, and a region of which he knows nothing?

Posted by Don Williams | April 14, 2008 10:52 PM

So the "correct" answer on the highly classified security simulation was to invade Iraq?

And Obama didn't do that?

Posted by putnam | April 14, 2008 10:56 PM

This, of course, is what we would see for four years of the Obama Administration: all criticism of the President would be labeled "racist."

We are all Steve Sailer now!

Perish the thought.

Steve, you don't need Obama to become president to be labeled "racist," or racist.

So you really don't need to worry about it that much.

Posted by SoCalJustice | April 14, 2008 11:04 PM

It has never been a friendly comment to denigrate a grown man as a boy, particularly when that man is your age peer and higher than you on the power structure.

Loviatar, you may have a reading comprehension problem. I'll quote myself:

It's just an innaccurate pejorative.

So I understand it as an unfriendly statement. I just think the racism thing is overblown.

Are black people racist when they call me "white boy"? Are they racist when they call me "boy"? I wouldn't interpret it that way.

Racism should be reserved for terms that specifically relate someone's race to some pejorative quality or some implication of inferioit. "Boy" does not specifically refer to black people, so it shouldn't be considered a racist commnent.

This sort of death-by-most-hostile-interpretation-of-a-soundbite -possible is exactly what I've been critcizing people for doing to Obama in Bittergate.

I think it's okay to point out that his terminology is racially insensitive. That's a lot clearer than "racist" and fundamentally a more accurate description of the type of problem being discussed.

Posted by glasnost | April 14, 2008 11:08 PM

I know I always call all my white homeboys nigga. Trying to racialize the word is just the height of latte-sipping limousine-driving Bible-hating liberalism.

This isn't even close to a good parody. I mean, "my white homeboys"? Please.

In rethinking, I suppose I can see where some people might consider "boy" as bigoted. But clearly it is no more racist than calling Obama "articulate" (remember when Team Obama played that race card?). And Matthew thinks that there is there's a lot to be said on behalf of the Democratic Party nominating the racist who called Obama "articulate" for Vice President.

So, really, how bad could it be?

Posted by Al | April 14, 2008 11:09 PM

Where's the outrage? Hillary Clinton has legitimized racism in this campaign. She has also gotten America used to it.

Notice how Obama seeks to elevate our discussion; Hillary lowers it.

Without Hillary in this race, this remark gets the Trent Lott treatment. Now, it's just another racist attack; Hillary probably cheered.

I wonder if Hillary and her cronies use the "N" word about Obama in private?

Posted by cm | April 14, 2008 11:11 PM

Integrity?

Comments (155)