Comments taken out of context
Editor, The Times:
Sen. Harry Reid’s statement reflects the mindset of most Americans — including African Americans [“GOP says Reid should quit over Obama,” News, Jan. 11]. He should not be censored for being truthful based on the reality that America is not a colorblind society and has not reached the level that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke of: That men and women “should not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
What has happened is that many propagandists have taken Reid’s statement out of context to create conflict and promote their agenda. This strategy was used years ago in the print media and is called “yellow journalism.” Today, it is used by the television news-pundits to reinforce specific beliefs, in this case, the superiority of light-skinned African Americans over their darker sisters and brothers and to lessen the unity within a political party.
Stereotypes have been around for a long time and many white Americans, African Americans and biracial groups still embrace them. To those Americans who do believe in fairness and understanding, one should always listen or read with their spiritual ears and eyes and pay particular attention to the context of the statement and the time period as well.
I applaud President Obama for not hesitating to accept Reid’s apology. It shows his wisdom, understanding and gratitude for a senator who has not failed to support the Obama administration’s goals and objectives.
— Phyllis I. Beaumonte, former president of the Black Heritage Society, Seattle
Same standards should not apply to both parties
The recent controversy over comments made by Sen. Harry Reid regarding the electability of President Obama deserves a more considered examination if we are to accept — as GOP Chairman Michael Steele suggests — that Reid’s comments are the equivalent of those made by former Sen. Trent Lott in 2002 and — like Lott — Reid should resign for having made them. The same standards should be applied to both parties, but in this instance there is no comparison.
Reid was giving his analysis about how candidate Obama would fare in the 2008 election. Lott, on the other hand, was giving remarks at the late Sen. Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party, in which he praised Thurmond’s presidential candidacy, speculating that had Thurmond won, the nation, “wouldn’t have had all of these problems for all of these years.” Thurmond openly ran as a segregationist in 1948. Which “problems” are we supposed to think Lott was talking about?
The worst that can be said of Reid is that, while he thought the election of a black president possible in 2008, he was nevertheless suggesting that America was still too racist to do so unless the candidate spoke like a white candidate and had fair skin. The best that can be said of Sen. Lott is that he was trying to say kind words about an old racist senator in the waning days of Thurmond’s career and life and instead clumsily appeared to endorse segregation.
Reid’s sin was suggesting that racism still exists. Lott’s sin was humoring it.
— Stephen Crotts, Edmonds