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

[Anonymous]

To me, it is definitely a racist statement. It is an outrageous thing to say about our President.

I have gotten into a horrible Facebook discussion about whether or not the statement is racist after I pointed out (politely) to the poster who was bashing Obama that her statement was racist.

Now, a whole bunch of knucklheads (i.e.. rednecks, hill billies, Tea partiers) are attacking me endlessly. How dare I accuse them of racism???? I say, they are completely ignorant if they don't understand that a SLAVE ANALOGY is racist.

What say you all?

[Anonymous]

* knuckleheads ...sorry typing too fast.

[Anonymous]

Not at all. What an odd question.

[Anonymous]

i don't get how that's racist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To me, it is definitely a racist statement. It is an outrageous thing to say about our President.

I have gotten into a horrible Facebook discussion about whether or not the statement is racist after I pointed out (politely) to the poster who was bashing Obama that her statement was racist.

Now, a whole bunch of knucklheads (i.e.. rednecks, hill billies, Tea partiers) are attacking me endlessly. How dare I accuse them of racism???? I say, they are completely ignorant if they don't understand that a SLAVE ANALOGY is racist.

What say you all?

Nope

[Anonymous]

A "whipping" would be racist. But a "whoopin'" is more an expression one associates with losing a contest, so I think you may be protesting a bit too much, honestly.

But I'm not sure why you'd bother getting into a pissing match with people who will deny until the day they die that their hatred for the black president is rooted in racism.

That said if any Tea Party type tries to tell you that they're not interested in social issues, just link the stories out there about how the Tea Party wants to file a class action lawsuit against homosexuality.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

A fact is not racist.

[Anonymous]

racist

[takoma]

It sound racist to me also. But styles of speech vary, and it may have been intended to mimic a parent speaking of a wayward child or some other non-racist situation. Perhaps a tactical retreat may be in order, where you say you did not mean to can anyone a racist, just to give a little feedback about how the original statement could be interpreted.

Having had very little respect for the job done by his predecessor, I try to have a little empathy for those who dislike Obama. But disparaging each other certainly does nothing to convince anyone of the other viewpoint, and only poisons the atmosphere. So, while I don't defend lack of respect for the office, I think reaching out to the other side may be a better antidote (as was, I think, your original intent.)

[Anonymous]

Not a semantic expert, but I think of it as a child gets a "whoopin" but then everyone on here seems to dig up slave terminology for almost any word spoken.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not a semantic expert, but I think of it as a child gets a "whoopin" but then everyone on here seems to dig up slave terminology for almost any word spoken.

And when a white person talks about a black person (especially the particular one who is the most powerful person in the country) as occupying the equivalent of the subservient category of a child, that is racist.

[Anonymous]

Nope.

A whoopin in a policy fight - not racist
A whoopin in public opinion polls - not racist
A whoopin by the adoring press - not racist.

We finished? Move on.

[Anonymous]

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/