posted on June 16, 2008 03:50:27 PM new
Subject: STAR JONES REYNOLDS RESPONDS TO BILL O'REILLY - MICHELLE OBAMA
Below is Star Jones' informed and provocative response to Bill
O'Reilly's comment about 'having a lynching party for Michelle Obama if
he finds out that she truly has no pride in her country.'
Bill O'Reilly said:
'I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless
there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really
feels.
If that's how she really feels - that is a bad country or a flawed
nation, whatever - then that's legit. We'll track it do wn.'
Star said:
'I'm sick to death of people like Fox News host, Bill O'Reilly, and his
ilk thinking that he can use a racial slur against a black woman who
could be the next First Lady of the United States, give a half-assed
apology and not be taken to task and called on his crap. What the hell?
If it's 'legit,'
you're going to 'track it down?'
And then what do you plan to do? How dare this white man with a
microphone and the trust of the public think that in 2008, he can still
put the words 'lynch and party' together in the same sentence with
reference to a black woman; in this case, Michelle Obama? I don't care
how you 'spin it' in the 'no spin zone,' that statement in and of itself
is racist, unacceptable and inappropriate on every level.
O'Reilly claims his comments were taken out of context. Please don't
insult my intelligence while you're insulting me. I've read the comments
and heard them delivered in O'Reilly's own voice; and there is no right
context that exists. So, his insincere apology and 'out-of-context'
excuse is not going to cut it with me.
And just so we're clear, this has nothing to do with the 2008
presidential election, me being a Democrat, him claiming to be
Independent while talking Republican, the liberal media or a
conservative point of view. To the contrary, this is about crossing a
line in the sand that needs to be drawn based on history, dignity, taste
and truth.
Bill, I'm not sure of where you come from, but let me tell you what the
phrase 'lynching party' conjures up to me, a black woman born in North
Carolina .. Those words depict the image of a group of white men who are
angry with the state of the own lives getting together, drinking more
than they need to drink, lamenting h ow some black person has moved
forward (usually ahead of them in stature or dignity), and had the
audacity to think that they are equal. These same men for years, instead
of looking at what changes, should and could make in their own lives
that might remove that bitterness born of perceived privilege, these
white men take all of that resentment and anger and decide to get
together and drag the closest black person near them to their death by
hanging them from a tree - usually after violent beating, torturing and
violating their human dignity. Check your history books, because you
don't need a masters or a law degree from Harvard to know that is what
constitutes a 'lynching party.'
Imagine, Michelle and Barack Obama having the audacity to think that
they have the right to the American dream, hopes, and ideals. O'Reilly
must think to himself: how dare they have the arrogance to think they
can stand in a front of this nation, challenge the status quo and
express the frustration of millions? When this happens, the first thing
that comes to mind for O'Reilly and people like him is: 'it's time for a
party.'
Not so fast...don't order the rope just yet.
Would O'Reilly ever in a million years use this phrase with reference to
Elizabeth Edwards, Cindy McCain or Judi Nathan? I mean, in all of the
statements and criticisms that were made about Judi Nathan, the one-time
mistress turned missus, of former presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani,
I never heard any talk of forming a lynch party because of something she
said or did.
So why is it that when you're referring to someone who's
African-American you must dig to a historical place of pain, agony and
death to symbolize your feelings? Lynching is not a joke to off-handedly
throw around and it is not a metaphor that has a place in political
commentary; provocative or otherwise. I admit that I come from a place
of personal outrage here having buried my 90 year-old g randfather last
year. This proud, amazing African-American man raised his family and
lived through the time when he had to use s ep arate water fountains,
ride in the back of a bus, take his wife on a date to the 'colored
section' of a movie theater, and avert his eyes when a white woman
walked down the street for fear of what a white man and his cronies
might do if they felt the urge to 'party'; don't tell me that the phrase
you chose, Mr. O'Reilly, was taken out of context.
To add insult to injury, O'Reilly tried to 'clarify' his statements, by
using the excuse that his comments were reminiscent of Supreme Court
Justice Clarence Thomas' use of the term 'high-tech lynching' during his
confirmation hearing. I reject that analogy. You see Justice Thomas did
mean to bring up the image of lynching in its racist context. He was
saying that politics and the media were using a new technology to do to
him what had been done to black men for many years -- hang him.
Regardless of if you agreed with Justice Thomas' premise or not, if in
fact
-- Bill O'Reilly was referencing it -- the context becomes even clearer.
What annoys me more than anything is that I get the feeling that one of
the reasons Bill O'Reilly made this statement, thinking he could get
away with it in the first place, and then followed it up with a lame
apology in a half-hearted attempt to smooth any ruffled feathers, is
because he doesn't think that black women will come out and go after him
when he goes after us. Well, he's dead wrong. Be clear Bill
O'Reilly: there will be no lynch party for that black woman and this
black woman assures you that if you come for her, you come for all of
us.'
Star Jones Reynolds
Star Jones Reynolds Responds To Bill O'Reilly/Fox News About Michelle
Obama!
posted on June 16, 2008 07:19:33 PM new
I didn't realize Star is so articulate. Good for her! Bill O'Reilly was never one of my favorites, but I think he should receive the same treatment as Don Imus for his thoughtless remarks.
You have to get Bill O'Reilly off the air. America has put up with his immoral sexual indiscretions because, supposedly, it did not interfere with his journalistic integrity. With his wanton references to lynching Michelle Obama, he has crossed the line of journalistic license into the realm of unleashed racism. He must see the consequences of his actions, as did Don Imus. I see this as a greater infraction of the trust of the American people because O'Reilly has been poised as a legitimate journalist, while Imus always was tongue in cheek. Star Jones has said it best, and I and my friends have decided not to watch Fox until O'Reilly is removed
[ edited by pixiamom on Jun 16, 2008 08:04 PM ]
posted on June 16, 2008 11:05:19 PM new
Bill is really a piece of work, isn't he. Lately there have been times when he was beat in the ratings, and I suspect the guy is feeling scared. He should be.
_____________________
posted on June 17, 2008 05:05:20 AM new
This is a link to Media Matters where you will find 282 pages of bigoted and slanderous statements by Bill O'Reilly.
They also offer good information about how to respond here
Would it get your attention if someone used the concept of a "gassing party" in a similar scenario against a Jewish individual just as O'Reilly used the "lynching party" concept against a black woman.
Would that arouse your moral indignation a little bit?
posted on June 17, 2008 02:33:53 PM new
I think everyone knew exactly what O'Reilly meant and Jones decided she could play the race card express outrage and get her name in the paper.
And since the latter would never happen, as it is not common speech, I wouldn't give it a thought.
posted on June 17, 2008 02:36:15 PM new
I have to say that I'd have been equally offended if a Democrat had uttered the "lynching party" words about an African-American.
Desquirrel: Do you really not get what lynching meant in the South until recently? Not sure I ever heard of a white person lynched.
Helen makes a good point about "gassing party." Surely you get that?
_____________________
posted on June 17, 2008 06:39:20 PM new
What O'Reilly said was, at best, insensitive and, at worst, racist. Either way, there is no excuse for using that phrase. Tap dance all you want desquirrel, you know that was very inappropriate. Well, maybe you don't. If you are a regular watcher of O'Reilly, you have probably become desensitized to things like this.
posted on June 17, 2008 07:18:48 PM new
I have found that it is easier to just not watch a show or pay to see a movie, if the "Star" has qualities, or makes statements, or supports causes against what I believe is right.
posted on June 17, 2008 07:48:20 PM new
The Star Jones response to O'Reilly was back in February. She may have been sincere but she had also just ended her tv show and may have wanted some more media attention to try to keep her career going any way she could. About that same time she was getting divorced after endlessly touting her perfect marriage every chance she got. In my eyes she's no better than O'Reilly or Coulter.
posted on June 17, 2008 07:50:29 PM new
As to "lynchings" per se, you can rest assured that infinitely more white people than black have been "lynched". Lynching was a staple of Old West justice.
That being said, I really don't care if someone utters somebody's "magic" words. The Constitution guarantees everyone the right of free speech. Now to liberals this means the "right speech" (and it goes w/o saying, by their definition.) If someone utters something I don't like, I do not listen to them. There is no need to ponder the endless permutations, or examine the tonal inflections. There is no guarantee "not to be offended".
posted on June 18, 2008 06:07:20 AM new
First, it's not true that "infinitely more white people than black have been "lynched".
"Although a substantial number of white people were victims of this crime, the vast majority of those lynched, by the 1890s and after the turn of the century, were Black people. [b]Actually, the pattern of almost exclusive lynching of Negroes was set during the Reconstruction period. According to the Tuskegee Institute statistics for the period covered in this study, the total number of Black lynching victims was more than two and one-half times as many as the number of whites put to death by lynching."
Besides, The count was not important from their viewpoint since by lynching only a few they were able to instill fear and intimidate the entire race. Their goal was to maintain white supremacy.
And, you are also wrong to assume that the use of inappropriate and insensitive speech is only a political issue. How ridiculous! You implicate the constitution and free speech and then add "There is no guarantee "not to be offended". Of course there is no guarantee "not to be offended! But there IS a guarantee that whoever uses such inappropriate language will be seen as an insensitive, callous jerk by people from the entire political spectrum.
Even your president claims to recognize that.
"For generations of African-Americans, the noose was more than a tool of murder. It was a tool of intimidation that conveyed a sense of powerlessness to millions. The era of rampant lynching is a shameful chapter in American history. The noose is not a symbol of prairie justice, but of gross injustice. Displaying one is not a harmless prank. Lynching is not a word to be mentioned in jest."
posted on June 18, 2008 10:05:35 AM new
"First, it's not true that "infinitely more white people than black have been "lynched"."
Yes, it is. Your statistics conveniently choose a time period dominated by the rise of the KKK. The term comes from a Va judge of the 1700s. Prior to 1882, the majority of lynching took place in territories which were not yet states. It was rampant as various factions sought control. Immaterial in any case.
posted on June 18, 2008 10:36:56 AM new
"The term comes from a Va judge of the 1700s. Prior to 1882, the majority of lynching took place in territories which were not yet states. It was rampant as various factions sought control. Immaterial in any case."
Yes, and the average life expctancy was 40-45 in the 1800's due to lack of medical knowledge and antibiotics. So? We all can come up with evidence to support our theories if we dig hard enough and focus on our side. You know,as well as anyone on this board, that "lynching" is closely associated with the black struggle as much as the ovens were associated with Jewish victims of the Holocaust and internment camps for the Japanese during WWII. If O'Reilly had said he wanted to put a "hit" on Giuliani, or called former N.Y. Gov. Pataki, a Polish-American, "dumb" (use the analogy of your choice) there would have been plenty of negative feedback. You have been listening to that Republican spin for too long.
posted on June 18, 2008 12:01:40 PM new
First. . .I can't stand Star Jones. IMHO, she's nothing more than a publicity hound. Has been since she was fired from The View.
Second. . .I find Bill O'Reilly offensive. Unfortunately, nothing he says is against the law. You have the option not to listen. If his following dwindled down then perhaps he'd be taken off the air. Until then, I don't see anything being done about him just like nothing is done about the KKK. As long as their are people who agree with his views, he'll be around.
Now. . .if I blew my top or got all bent out of shape over everything people say that offends me, I'd be living my life in perpetual anger. I choose not to. I just choose to ignore those thoughts and opinions that offend me or that might offend someone close to me. Life is too short to go ballistic over the likes of Bill O'Reilly. Star Jones is just feeding him ammunition. IMHO.
posted on June 18, 2008 12:58:14 PM new
Star Jones is a nonentity to me. Who in the hell is she?
The focus of my comments was the use of the term "lynching party" after "tracking down" information about the black wife of Obama. Most decent people can't ignore that without flinching or giving a dam.
posted on June 18, 2008 01:21:29 PM new
Oh, I flinch, Helen. Like I said, I find him offensive. I never heard him say any of that because I don't listen to him. If people would stop listening to what he says and if they'd stop responding to it, he wouldn't have an audience and maybe he'd fade away.
Star Jones used to be on The View. She was arrogant and cocky, IMO. This talks about her departure from The View:
"Shortly after, Jones joined Larry King on his talk show to defend her position and respond to questions about why ABC had refused to renew her contract. The network claimed that not only did Jones's excessive reports about her wedding plans alienate viewers, but her acceptance of clothing and merchandise for the event, in exchange for mentions on The View, was in violation of network policy."
posted on June 18, 2008 02:13:16 PM new
"Nobody would have cared." Says you...you are more in denial than I thought.
For me, Star Jones is the least important thing about this thread. The issue is the statement about Michelle Obama. Freedom of speech is one of our most important freedoms, but it does not mean we have to like what is said or not criticize the insensitivity of a remark. Letting remarks such as this slide without comment only perpetuates the practice by convincing the speaker that it is acceptable. I do believe, however, that a small percentage of people who make remarks like this, actually enjoy the attention---like a misbehaving child who is starved for even negative attention.
posted on June 18, 2008 04:14:10 PM new "Yes, and the average life expctancy was 40-45 in the 1800's due to lack of medical knowledge and antibiotics. So? We all can come up with evidence to support our theories if we dig hard enough and focus on our side. You know,as well as anyone on this board, that "lynching" is closely associated with the black struggle as much as the ovens were associated with Jewish victims of the Holocaust and internment camps for the Japanese during WWII. If O'Reilly had said he wanted to put a "hit" on Giuliani, or called former N.Y. Gov. Pataki, a Polish-American, "dumb" (use the analogy of your choice) there would have been plenty of negative feedback. You have been listening to that Republican spin for too long."
Exactly right! Coach, your ablility to get to the gist of a problem or an off the wall reply is remarkable.
posted on June 18, 2008 05:16:34 PM new
Thanks, Helen. You are mighty insightful yourself. My experience with the mendacity (I've loved that word ever since I heard it in the movie Cat On a Hot Tin Roof) of Bush, Cheney et al over the past 8 years has given me the uncanny ability to recognize that it is NOT raining when someone pees on my leg.
posted on June 18, 2008 05:38:22 PM new
Oliver Wendell Holmes said, as chief justice, that freedom of speech does not include shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.
Here's my take on this argument we're having:
Many of us (at least among our far-flung acquaintances) are I think legitimately concerned that some idiot will assassinate Obama as happened to Martin Luther King Jr.
Even to USE the phrase "lynching party" in that incendiary program on that incendiary channel could set some crackpot to planning to kill ("lynch" one of the Obamas.
You can bet that, if someone like O'Reilly in the 1960s had used that phrase before MLK was murdered, fingers would have been pointing after the murder.
posted on June 18, 2008 05:39:45 PM new
P.S. And just who Star Jones is, and what her personal character is, shouldn't be the basis for an attack on her protest. It still has merit. A philosophy professor friend pointed out to me years ago what "ad hominem attack" meant. Look it up.
_____________________
posted on June 18, 2008 06:43:19 PM new
My point is O'Reilly and others like him, such as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, are always saying something ignorant for the shock value and it keeps them in the forefront while numerous news programs and papers latch onto it and analyze it. Each time there is true outrage from some over the comments but I suspect there are those who jump in with fake outrage, sometimes trying to get media attention for their own agenda. I question whether some of the comments made by O'Reilly and those like him are said because they really believe them or because it keeps their ratings higher.
posted on June 18, 2008 08:38:14 PM new
Wow, Roadsmith, I learned that phrase in 1971 when it meant little to me. Haven't revisited it since, now it seems so applicable to chat board discussions. Thanks for reminding me.
posted on June 18, 2008 10:59:34 PM new
Pixi: I was verbally attacking the position on an issue, of city's mayor, for whom I had little respect as a man with no morals, and my professor friend urged me to stick to the issue at hand and not muddy the waters with an ad hominem attack. I learned a lot from that, but sometimes, of course, I forget about it anyway, LOL.
Kiara: You may well be right about O'Reilly's saying things just for the shock value, to get a rise out of the "other side" and a rise in his ratings. This thing about M. Obama, though, just crossed a line.
_____________________
one of the Obamas.