Taking poll: "Obama needs a whoopin!" Is this a racist statement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not so fast. Whoopin has more racial connotations than many on here seem to be aware of. To wit:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/10/20/whooping/

BUt the very fact that "many" aren't aware of the racial connotations makes it inherently impossible to assign racial malice to them when they use the phrase. So, that's the box OP is in.

This falls under the category of "give them the benefit of the doubt."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it depends on how that person speaks in other contexts.

To me, it does sound racist, whereas a phrase like "taking [x] to the woodshed" does not, because the latter has entered the vernacular as something even educated people will say to mean chewing someone out in private. In comparison, saying "Obama needs a whoopin'" sounds more like "Obama has gotten too big for his britches," which I'd also perceive as having racial overtones when referring to a black President.

Just my two cents, since you asked.

+1

Any time a white person who is not the president is insinuating that the president who is black needs to be taken down (has gotten too big for his britches, is above his station, needs to be brought back in line, etc.) the implication is that what is out of line is his behavior in accordance with his expected-to-be-subservient racial category. So, yes, while a totally bald parsing of that sentence may not be racist (and what is, except the n-word by that standard?) the sentiment and the lack of restraint in expressing it are both rooted in racism.

But people who do not understand why the n-word or coon or whatever are "still racist" will never understand or accept the reality of racism that is more subtle.

This. I think there is some racist innuendo in the statement. Even if the person who said it is a redneck/hillbilly or it's part of their vernacular, I suspect if it were a white person, the phrase would be "...needs an ass-kickin'."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not so fast. Whoopin has more racial connotations than many on here seem to be aware of. To wit:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/10/20/whooping/

BUt the very fact that "many" aren't aware of the racial connotations makes it inherently impossible to assign racial malice to them when they use the phrase. So, that's the box OP is in.


This falls under the category of "give them the benefit of the doubt."

OP is in no such box.

The OP suspects racial malice by a few. Because others might not have it, does not acquit the first group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not so fast. Whoopin has more racial connotations than many on here seem to be aware of. To wit:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/10/20/whooping/

BUt the very fact that "many" aren't aware of the racial connotations makes it inherently impossible to assign racial malice to them when they use the phrase. So, that's the box OP is in.


This falls under the category of "give them the benefit of the doubt."

OP is in no such box.

The OP suspects racial malice by a few. Because others might not have it, does not acquit the first group.

Yeah it does. Because has been demonstrated, "whoopin'" is not a universally understood racist dog whistle. So, yeah, OP looks really bad and loses her argument. If you're going to call someone racist, you'd better have the good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not so fast. Whoopin has more racial connotations than many on here seem to be aware of. To wit:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/10/20/whooping/

BUt the very fact that "many" aren't aware of the racial connotations makes it inherently impossible to assign racial malice to them when they use the phrase. So, that's the box OP is in.


This falls under the category of "give them the benefit of the doubt."

OP is in no such box.

The OP suspects racial malice by a few. Because others might not have it, does not acquit the first group.

Yeah it does. Because has been demonstrated, "whoopin'" is not a universally understood racist dog whistle. So, yeah, OP looks really bad and loses her argument. If you're going to call someone racist, you'd better have the good.

Sorry. This fails logic 101. You've worked in at least five fallacies in just three posts. If you would try to construct a valid and sound argument; you might get more support.

[takoma]

We can argue all we want, but there is no "correct" explanation of the word. There are, at risk of repeating myself, two aspects at play, how it was meant and how it was heard. How it was meant, only the speaker can know, and while we may have our suspicions, I think we have to go with innocent until proved guilty by additional evidence. How it is heard varies with the listener, and I think it's fair to point out to the speaker that at least some will hear it as racist, or at least racial.

[Anonymous]

Any time a white person who is not the president is insinuating that the president who is black needs to be taken down (has gotten too big for his britches, is above his station, needs to be brought back in line, etc.) the implication is that what is out of line is his behavior in accordance with his expected-to-be-subservient racial category. So, yes, while a totally bald parsing of that sentence may not be racist (and what is, except the n-word by that standard?) the sentiment and the lack of restraint in expressing it are both rooted in racism.

But people who do not understand why the n-word or coon or whatever are "still racist" will never understand or accept the reality of racism that is more subtle.

OP here ...This is what I believe also.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Any time a white person who is not the president is insinuating that the president who is black needs to be taken down (has gotten too big for his britches, is above his station, needs to be brought back in line, etc.) the implication is that what is out of line is his behavior in accordance with his expected-to-be-subservient racial category. So, yes, while a totally bald parsing of that sentence may not be racist (and what is, except the n-word by that standard?) the sentiment and the lack of restraint in expressing it are both rooted in racism.

But people who do not understand why the n-word or coon or whatever are "still racist" will never understand or accept the reality of racism that is more subtle.

OP here ...This is what I believe also.

Precisely. The sentiment and lack of restraint in expressing it are both rooted in racism.

I would add that a "whoopin" is something administered to a child because they did not conform to prescribed behavior. Use of that term regarding an adult is meant to to convey authority over one who has risen in station above the speaker.

That "risen in station above" is something a lot of citizens in our country simply can't stand about Obama. Providing cover for that expression is validating racist sentiment. Please don't do it.

[Anonymous]

^^ I am 3:12--NOT the OP, but the quote I sought didn't capture that

[Anonymous]

I'll agree that there are some racist terms--"n" word and "coon" are two of them. However, some claim any criticism of our President is racist. That is just "nuts" -or is that a racist term, too?

[takoma]

Okay, so for the sake of discussion, let's assume it was intended racially. What is one's goal in an internet discussion, to convince the person you're conversing with of something, to convince other readers of something, or to score points and make yourself feel good?

In case three, I'd say OP should stick to the point that the statement was racist. But in either case one or case two, I think it works better to be gracious and cede the point of intent, dialing back to a friendly attempt to inform the writer (and the defenders) that although the intent was not racial, many readers might take it that way, and a different choice of terminology would be more effective to make the point that the President is thought to be on the wrong track.

Of course, while wriing that last wishy-washy statement, you're perfectly free to think "Just shut the f**k up, you racist bastards."

[Anonymous]

Not racist.

[Anonymous]

I think of it as racist. I think it was said in the same way I can see men talking about a woman who is too powerful. How many thought that George Bush or Bill Clinton needed a whooping or their ass kicked? Probably not that many, regardless of whether they liked their politics. But I think lots of men would say something like Hillary needs a spanking, or Obama needs a whooping. It's part of the way they see the hierarchy of control and power.

[Anonymous]

So, this is kind of played out, no?

What about Maureen Dowd's columni this morning, referrring to Obama as "Sir Lecturealot"? And quoting Valerie Jarratt as having previously said that Obama is "just too talented to do what ordinary people do"? That sounds like Gwyneth Paltrow describing herself! No wonder things are such a mess. We have a President who is only comfortable in front of a lectern, at a time when thugs are running down the halls of Congress.

And people wonder why Hillary gets such a rapturous reception?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it depends on how that person speaks in other contexts.

To me, it does sound racist, whereas a phrase like "taking [x] to the woodshed" does not, because the latter has entered the vernacular as something even educated people will say to mean chewing someone out in private. In comparison, saying "Obama needs a whoopin'" sounds more like "Obama has gotten too big for his britches," which I'd also perceive as having racial overtones when referring to a black President.

Just my two cents, since you asked.

+1

Any time a white person who is not the president is insinuating that the president who is black needs to be taken down (has gotten too big for his britches, is above his station, needs to be brought back in line, etc.) the implication is that what is out of line is his behavior in accordance with his expected-to-be-subservient racial category. So, yes, while a totally bald parsing of that sentence may not be racist (and what is, except the n-word by that standard?) the sentiment and the lack of restraint in expressing it are both rooted in racism.

But people who do not understand why the n-word or coon or whatever are "still racist" will never understand or accept the reality of racism that is more subtle.

+1

I never heard such an expression used about George Dubya.