Okay, since you're accusing me of ignoring your points I'll go line by line.
But you're doing the same thing.
No, I'm not. See my multiple posts that you've continually simply disregarded as saying "I'm saying the same things" without actually countering them that shows that what I'm doing with Lott is entirely different.
Lott says that's not what he meant.
That may be the case, but there was zero context prior to his statement for someone to believe that was the case. He made a broad statement in support of a man whose presidency was focused on segregationism.
Even after this statement, its still a coin flip whether or not someone believes him because:
1) He's admitted supporting segregation in the past
2) He didn't clarify exactly what it is then about a man whose primary goal was segregationism that he thought would've caused America's problems not to be prsent today.
There's nothing comparable in Lott's repertoire to support that the segrationist platform is what he meant.
First, as I've said in other posts that you refuse to refute, there doesn't need to be something in Lott's repertoire for that. He gave BROAD support for a man whose primary focus and purpose in his run for the Presidency was segregation and whose platform was entirely based off segregationist views.
Second, Lott had expressed support for such views in the past.
They glommed onto a sentence, assumed he meant something, and that became the narrative.
As I've said in my other posts you refuse to acknowledge, please...I've yet to find anything beyond that sentence. If you can provide me with something further that shows Lott speaking of what specifically about Thurmonds presidency he was speaking of would've been helpful I'll happily rescind my thought. However he stated it broadly, so its assumed to be meant broadly.
The context says he should get the benefit of the doubt
No, it doesn't. See all my previous posts.
exactly as the context says Harry Reid should get the benefit of the doubt for his "light-skinned negro" comments
I don't think we should give Reid a "pass" for that, but I also don't think its worthy of a lot of hate either. I don't see it as a racist comment, I see it as a definitely RACIAL one though and I don't think anything really counters that from the context. The only thing one could say is that "negro" dialect is "racist" as it would be more politically correct to refer to it as an "urban" dialect, but I'd counter that the dialect he's speaking of is more commonly found and embraced amongst african-american communities in part due to thier higher proliferation within ubran areas but also because some of the more celebrity status members of that community use it as well (such as rappers).
or Clinton and his "bringing us coffee" comment.
I don't see this as a definitively racist comment. Could it be? Yes. But its not nearly as clear cut or broad of a thing as Lott's. The notion of the young guy or the "rookie" being hazed or being a "servent" of suchs is not an uncommon one. Look at football, where rookies are routinely the ones having to carry the shoulder pads of veterans. Look at the work place, where people who are new are usually given the "bitch work" like filing in an office or other such things. Hell, I can look at online communities where new mods or admin are joked about as the "coffee boy" or jokes about them essentially being the "bitch" may occur. The notion that the "rookie" or the "younger people" are subservient to "veterans" is hardly an unusual one, and Clinton's comment can read just as easily as a comment that this guy is still wet under his nose/basically a rookie as it does "This guy would've been our slave!" Indeed, since people didn't have slaves "a few years ago" I actually think its far MORE likely that its a reference to the veteran/rookie mentality more so than the owner/slave mentality.
And more so Lotts comment is nothing like Obama's comment. Obama went into detail, explaining with context enough to give a good indication that:
1. He wasn't referring to mongrel like a dog
2. He wasn't being derogatory to black people
3. He was speaking about mixing of ethnicity
From what I've seen Trent Lott when he made his comments gave no additional context, but simply made a broad comment that is reasonable to consider broadly.
