• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are African-Americans a mongrel people?

Are African-Americans a mongrel people?

  • Total voters
    33
mongrel [ˈmʌŋgrəl]
n
1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Breeds) a plant or animal, esp a dog, of mixed or unknown breeding; a crossbreed or hybrid
2. (Social Science / Peoples) Derogatory a person of mixed race
Click to expand...

Bad choice in words for Obama. I know he isn't intentionally calling black people an animal/dog or using it to be a derogatory slur. But if a Republican or white person had said this, I guarantee all hell would break lose.
 
digsbe said:
Bad choice in words for Obama. I know he isn't intentionally calling black people an animal/dog or using it to be a derogatory slur. But if a Republican or white person had said this, I guarantee all hell would break lose.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, where is that definition from?

Edit: Nevermind. I found it. Why didn't you also quote the adjective definition? He used it as an adjective in this case.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
Out of curiosity, where is that definition from?

Edit: Nevermind. I found it. Why didn't you also quote the adjective definition? He used it as an adjective in this case.
Click to expand...

I wasn't thinking. I'll quote it here
adj.
Of mixed origin or character.
Click to expand...
mongrel - definition of mongrel by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

The point is that Obama foolishly used a word that if any white person or Republican had said would have raised hell. I mean, you can't even use the word niggardly anymore without raising controversy even though the word has nothing to do with race or the word nigger.
 
digsbe said:
I wasn't thinking. I'll quote it here
mongrel - definition of mongrel by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Click to expand...

Seems that he used it perfectly using that definition.

The point is that Obama foolishly used a word that if any white person or Republican had said would have raised hell. I mean, you can't even use the word niggardly anymore without raising controversy even though the word has nothing to do with race or the word nigger.
Click to expand...

Is it Obama's fault that people freak out over the use of "niggardly" or that white people and republicans would gotten **** for using the word "mongrel" correctly as he did?
 
Are African-Americans a mongrel people?

They sure are. And the term "African-Americans" by isself indicates so already. It is merely redundant to ask.
 
Tucker Case said:
Is it Obama's fault that people freak out over the use of "niggardly" or that white people and republicans would gotten **** for using the word "mongrel" correctly as he did?
Click to expand...

Actually, yes, partially, having been involved with and in leadership positions among those who do so freak. Perhaps a very, very small part given that's he's only one among millions, but indeed, partially.
 
Harshaw said:
Actually, yes, partially, having been involved with and in leadership positions among those who do so freak. Perhaps a very, very small part given that's he's only one among millions, but indeed, partially.
Click to expand...

Do you have evidence of him freaking?
 
Tucker Case said:
Do you have evidence of him freaking?
Click to expand...

Not the point, obviously. But he's been in a position to influence the atmosphere in his own crowd. Do you have evidence of him trying to get people NOT to freak? 'Coz they do. And he's been a leader for a long time.
 
Tucker Case said:
Do you have evidence of him freaking?
Click to expand...

But, as you asked for it, here you go -- Obama on Trent Lott (who, as you'll recall, never actually said anything remotely like what Obama accuses him of here):

"It seems to be that we can forgive a 100-year-old senator for some of the indiscretion of his youth, but, what is more difficult to forgive is the current president of the U.S. Senate (Lott) suggesting we had been better off if we had followed a segregationist path in this country after all of the battles and fights for civil rights and all the work that we still have to do . . . the Republican Party itself has to drive out Trent Lott. If they have to stand for something, they have to stand up and say this is not the person we want representing our party."
 
digsbe said:
Bad choice in words for Obama. I know he isn't intentionally calling black people an animal/dog or using it to be a derogatory slur. But if a Republican or white person had said this, I guarantee all hell would break lose.
Click to expand...

That may be true...

So what?

Becuase some people would stupidly start flying off the handle based on no more context beyond "African americans are a mongrel people" and "white person" that makes it right to mischaracterize what's being said or attempt to "trap" people into talking about something broadly to then claim they're being hypocritical?

My reaction would be the same. If that was John McCain, Clarence Thomas, or Charlie Rangel that said that in total like Obama said, I'd be reacting much the same way.

If someone instead said "They're a mongrel people, savage at their core, and prone to bite at the hand that feeds" then my reaction of it would be more towards the notion of refering to people as wild dogs then of mixed ethnic origin. This would be true regardless of whether or not it was Boehner or if it was Reverend Jackson.

Now, if it was a random whtie republican that I never heard of before so knew nothing about them beyond them being a white republican and ALL I was given was "African americans are a mongrel people" then my reaction would've been that it was an unwise and bad thing to say but wanting to know "when did he say that?" because I'd want to see what comments were made around it before commenting definitively.
 
Harshaw said:
But, as you asked for it, here you go -- Obama on Trent Lott (who, as you'll recall, never actually said anything remotely like what Obama accuses him of here):

"It seems to be that we can forgive a 100-year-old senator for some of the indiscretion of his youth, but, what is more difficult to forgive is the current president of the U.S. Senate (Lott) suggesting we had been better off if we had followed a segregationist path in this country after all of the battles and fights for civil rights and all the work that we still have to do . . . the Republican Party itself has to drive out Trent Lott. If they have to stand for something, they have to stand up and say this is not the person we want representing our party."
Click to expand...

That was not freaking out over someone using the word niggardly. That was "freaking out" over someone stating this:

"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either," Lott said at last week's party."

about a man whose Presidential campaign at the time was founded on such notions as "All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches". A presidential campaign whose platform was literally as follows:

"We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race."

I would say "freaking out" over someone who suggested the country would've been better off if everyone had gotten behind a party whose and President whose platform was that segregation needed to happen to keep racial integrity and that Negro's shouldn't be in the white mans churches, homes, and schools is far, far different than "freaking out" over someone saying "niggardly" and would be a much more questionable comment to make other than suggesting that black individuals are of mixed heritage by using a word that colloquilally has a double use as an insult.
 
Zyphlin said:
That was not freaking out over someone using the word niggardly. That was "freaking out" over someone stating this:

"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either," Lott said at last week's party."

about a man whose Presidential campaign at the time was founded on such notions as "All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches". A presidential campaign whose platform was literally as follows:

"We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race."

I would say "freaking out" over someone who suggested the country would've been better off if everyone had gotten behind a party whose and President whose platform was that segregation needed to happen to keep racial integrity and that Negro's shouldn't be in the white mans churches, homes, and schools is far, far different than "freaking out" over someone saying "niggardly" and would be a much more questionable comment to make other than suggesting that black individuals are of mixed heritage by using a word that colloquilally has a double use as an insult.
Click to expand...

But you're doing the same thing. Lott says that's not what he meant. There's nothing comparable in Lott's repertoire to support that the segrationist platform is what he meant. They glommed onto a sentence, assumed he meant something, and that became the narrative. The context says he should get the benefit of the doubt, exactly as the context says Harry Reid should get the benefit of the doubt for his "light-skinned negro" comments, or Clinton and his "bringing us coffee" comment.
 
Zyphlin said:
Simple.

If your purpose is what it CLEARLY was, which was being spurred by Obama's comment and referencing his comment, you could've gone.

If your purpose was HONESTLY not trying to set a trap and were meaning this in an entirely generalized way you could've gone
Click to expand...
Great.
And how would -any- of that have changed your response to my question?
 
I fail to see how it can be possible to answer a question phrased in a vacuum.
 
liblady said:
i don't like the term.
Click to expand...
So they arent mongrels, not because they dont fit the definion, but because you dont like the term?
Wow.. talk about self-importance.
 
Redress said:
I would have actually answered.
Click to expand...
Ah yes -- because you agreeing or disagreeing with a statement depends on who says it.
Not a surprise.
 
Harshaw said:
But, as you asked for it, here you go -- Obama on Trent Lott (who, as you'll recall, never actually said anything remotely like what Obama accuses him of here):

"It seems to be that we can forgive a 100-year-old senator for some of the indiscretion of his youth, but, what is more difficult to forgive is the current president of the U.S. Senate (Lott) suggesting we had been better off if we had followed a segregationist path in this country after all of the battles and fights for civil rights and all the work that we still have to do . . . the Republican Party itself has to drive out Trent Lott. If they have to stand for something, they have to stand up and say this is not the person we want representing our party."
Click to expand...

Which specific word in this example was used in its correct context, but for some reason Obama "feaked out" over it?

Because, try as I might, I cannot find one.
 
BDBoop said:
I fail to see how it can be possible to answer a question phrased in a vacuum.
Click to expand...
I fail to see how you cannot answer the question, exactly as posed.
 
I kind of know what he meant, but he did use a bad choice of words. I also agree that if a white politician had said that their would be a whole lot of rage coming from my side over this, and for that I would be ashamed that people are to stupid to actually look up a word before they judge something.
 
Goobieman said:
Ah yes -- because you agreeing or disagreeing with a statement depends on who says it.
Not a surprise.
Click to expand...

Oh look, we have more dishonesty. I made it clear in this thread that it is the context that matters. Without knowing context, we cannot properly judge a statement.
 
Tucker Case said:
Which specific word in this example was used in its correct context, but for some reason Obama "feaked out" over it?

Because, try as I might, I cannot find one.
Click to expand...

Dude. There's no way you didn't understand my point.
 
Redress said:
Oh look, we have more dishonesty. I made it clear in this thread that it is the context that matters. Without knowing context, we cannot properly judge a statement.
Click to expand...
Except in this case, as -none- of that matters.

Who said it doesnt matter. Disagree? Why?
Why it was said doesnt matter. Disagree? Why?
Where it was said doesn't matter Disagree? Why?
That anyone said it at all -- doesn't matter.

Thus, context doesnt matter.

All -you- want to do here is -avoid- the question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom