Ralph Nader - racist

William

Nader is clearly not being racist. He intends the phrase 'Uncle Tom' to refer to someone doing the bidding of others. I've heard, on other forums, white columnists being referred to as 'Uncle Toms' for reporting the party line or being obsequious to a particular person or organisation. This is clearly the intent behind Nader's usage.

Nice of Fox News to ignore the actual point, you have to say.

RobHK

I'm entirely with William on this. Nader made perfectly clear what he meant. Anyone who genuinely believes he is racist is plain stupid.
The accusation of racism is a bit like the accusations of anti-semitism thrown at anyone who criticises Israel or AIPAC etc. Chuck out an unfounded accusation and you avoid the issue.

The Dandiprat

Never heard of Ralph Nader until now, but he said nothing here to be in any way ashamed. He seemed to be making very valid observations about the task Mr Obama has.

Nader also spoke up for the ordinary worker which is a welcome novelty on either side of the Atlantic.

Shep Smith on the other hand should heed Nader's remark that 'this is not showbiz', because Smith is just so dying to show his right-on credentials and his smooth as silk broadcasting voice above anything else. If he is in charge of a political affairs programme, then he needs to stop mincing around and get on with the job.

Marko Attila Hoare

Unless anyone can provide a quote of Nader using the term 'Uncle Tom' to describe white presidential candidates, then Stephen is right.

Just look at this article by John Pilger, describing Obama as an 'Uncle Tom'. He doesn't use the term to refer to any of the white politicians he mentions:

http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=471

Funny, that...

Lee

Absolutely not a racist comment.

Here's another example of the American media playing childish games with semantics in order to manipulate the public. But, if the comment sections of left wing blogs indicates anything it is that this kind of thing works astoundingly well.

It makes me sad for the American people. There is so much truth in what Nader says but they just can't get past his perceived role as "spoiler" in elections where the two parties agree on what to debate and how to be different.

It also saddens me that people are so stupid these days. The last example of this media manipulation aptly occurred when Obama said that the Sarah Palin's nomination was to the McCain campaign like "putting lipstick on a pig." The fine folks over at Fox News claimed he was calling Sarah Palin a pig!

Adam B.

RobHK, this is an old chestnut. Let me ask you this: who has used the term "antisemitic" against someone who simply criticizes the Israeli government? (And I don't mean a lone individual - one can always find an individual who has said almost anything). Which organization or body has accused someone who is simply criticizing the Israeli government as being antisemitic? One example please.

John Edwards

Well done Ralph Nader for refusing to be bullied by Fox News and sticking to the actual issue - Obama does not have particularly radical policies.

Jacko

I agree with William and RobHK.

There are all too many odious people like this Fox-interviewer who actually seem KEEN to find racism lurking in every corner!

Nader was right - the guy is just a stupid bully.
(And notice how quickly he backed off when Nader stood up to him!)

Toby

Of course, Nader is being a racist just as Rob is being an antisemite.

The comparison someone criticizing 'Jewish influence" is telling.

Using the term "uncle tom" by a white person is racist no matter the intention because it's an insult to Black people in the US.

Robin Hardy-King

@Toby
November 8th, 2008 9:39am

...just as Rob is being an antisemite.

I demand an apology for that.

RobHK

To state what everyone knows, but needs to be made clear:
- Uncle Tom was a fictional black character, who accepted dominance by the white establishment in exchange for privilege.
- The term has been widely used pejoratively, mainly but not exclusively by blacks to describe a black individual perceived as having a similar attitude.
- Nader, who is white has used it in this sense.

I do not want a world where what you are allowed to say is determined by your skin colour.

RobHK

@ Mark

- Uncle Tom is a black character, defined by his blackness.
- The use of the term figuratively only makes sense when applied to a black person.
- No criticism is usually attached to use of the term by a black person.

Ergo, what is at issue is whether it may legitimately be used _by_ a white person, not _of_ a white person

Alan

Racist? What piffle. Totally lazy assertion. Typical Fox. Disappointing Spectator.

Bill from Canada

I would have chosen different words, but Nader poses a vexing question from the "left" perspective.

The Democratic Party attack dogs, bolstered by Obama's "symbolic triumph", have been all over this story. They still can't get over the 2000 election, where Nader provided a convenient scapegoat for Dubya's pseudo-victory.
(Imagine that rascal Nader, actually exercising his right to run for
office, and working to earn votes. I mean, why would we expect Gore to
win his home state?).

But even these attack dogs must be a little uncomfortable jumping into bed
with FAUX News, their mortal enemy. They are hoping that mascara-caked Shep Smith's pitiful "interview" finally sinks old Ralph, who has contributed more to our collective safety and political discourse than a dozen DP hacks.

Roy

We see again so called "progressives" using racist language in order to push their agenda.

Ron

It was clearly racially insensitive! He should have never even said that!

Matt

Anybody who thinks Ralph Nader is a racist is very uneducated. A quick review of his history will inform one otherwise. Not to mention that what he said on FOX wasn't racist at all. A little over the line, yes, but racist, no.

DarkEmpress

Clearly the people who are saying that Nader's comments are not racist, do not know anything about America. Due to the long struggles of slavery, segregation there are certain words or phrases that both white and black people equally recognize to be inflammatory- believe me, Nader is not ignorant to this. There is no debate about it, they are simple facts. Which, is why a white reporter on a right wing news station immediately noted the comment and questioned it. It may be hard for people outside the bubble of American race relations to understand, but that is the case.

kammieZ

I remember Jesse Jackson whispering for Obama's n*ts to be cut off over for Obama's Clintonesque put-down of black fathers last Father's Day.

Jackson apologised for the rough language, but not the (correct) analysis.

Nader's analysis is correct - will we demand and organize for change, or "hope" for it, roll over and go back to sleep?

Adam B.

RobHK, an example? Or do you retract what you said?

Jonathan

This comment is VERY racist. The Uncle references used are uniquely about the African-American slave experience--which is silly because Obama's ancestors were never slaves in America. His Kenyan father is from Africa and his caucasion mother is from Kansas.

Nader's political career is over.

Jonathan

And

If Obama offended all the black people them why the heck did they all vote for him and are crying and overwhelmed with emotion for him.

I don't think Ralph Nader speaks for the black people out there.

Jacko

Dark Empress said: "Clearly the people who are saying that Nader's comments are not racist, do not know anything about America."

I think this is missing the point. It may be right to say that Nader's remark was insensitive and ill-chosen. But the issue is whether he is therefore a racist?

In my opinion, it is utterly unreasonable to damn a person because of a single ill-considered off-the-cuff remark! If you want to accuse someone of having a real animus against black people, then you have to look for a consistent pattern of prejudice and bigotry - not just one poorly chosen remark!

RobHK

AdamB

Well, Toby seems to have proved my point. I can't be bothered to trawl the Web for other examples, but you know as well as I do there are plenty out there. Can we now drop the ad hominems and get back to the issue in hand? (If you post again on this red herring I shall ignore you.)

RobHK

After reading all the comments, I am going to modify a little what I said at the top.

Anyone who knows Nader knows he is not racist, but the choice of analogy was ill-judged. It would have been more appropriate from a black person, but there too I would not have been happy with it.

On the other hand he was making a defensible point, which he went on to clarify. His mistake was to stick to his original analogy, which handed ammunition to his clearly antipathetic interviewer.

This said, it is ironic to see this criticism coming from the "never knowingly understated" Stephen, who compares an argument he disagrees with to an an editorial in Der Sturmer.

Augustus

The interviewer here is an ignorant buffoon. Nader was making a valid point in modern usage about a black person's attitude to his fellow blacks. But it is latter-day ignorant revisionism by Americans in general towards African Americans in particular, where negative associations with 'Uncle Tom' have replaced what the 19th Century world saw, quite rightly, as perhaps the greatest single materialistic event which in the end helped fuel the abolitionist cause. It's not often that a novel has been able to do that! As for Stephen's comments, do you really have to be 'a nasty piece of work' simply for drawing attention to the fact that Obama is black? why, the BBC, the media, and all of America seems to do that all the time.

Adam B.

Yes, RobHK, you shall ignore because you have no examples to back your baseless claim. I asked whether you could find any examples, except individuals (one can always find an individual who will say almost anything - hardly "proof" of anything), and you have been unable to provide a single example. Case closed - yet you refuse to retract, even though you are clearly wrong.

Tarik

For the record, Ralph Nader is not "white". He is Lebanese.

BRinAsia

I wonder if RobHK shares my experience of having been so savagely attacked as anti-semitic (my attacker called me a "Jew-basher") for merely having criticised certain policies of the government of Israel that he doesn't want to see any more of such garbage, much less go looking for further examples.

As for an "organization or body" that has done this, what about the Anti-Defamation league? I am not sure if they have ever put their accusations quite this baldly (they seem careful to avoid charges of libel), but they certainly manage to convey the impression in what they do say that they consider almost any criticism of Israel to be anti-semitic. The government of Israel, likewise.

Adam B.

BRinAsia, amazing. You name an organization, without an example, yet you seem so sure it's true. What is that, a gut instinct? Glad you're not a member of a jury.

The Three Billy Islamic Fundamentalists Gruff

How come Jesse Jackson gets away with calling Mew York Hymietown?

BRinAsia

I am sure, because I read examples only yesterday of this kind of thinking by both the Anti-Defamation League and some department of the government of Israel. I did NOT go looking for any particular organisation. I simply Googled "criticism of Israel" and "anti-semitic" together and read through some of the press releases, etc., that it turned up. Ironically, the ones from the ADL and Israeli gov't were attempts to "explain" that they don't really hold that attitude, but the ways they defined everything made it pretty clear that they do consider ALMOST all criticism of the nation of Israel to be anti-semitic in nature.

Unfortunately, I didn't take note of the URLs, and I don't have the time to repeat the experiment today. I have told you, though, how I found them. Why don't you do it yourself? You might find it enlightening.

Adam B.

BRinAsia, I have done it. The facts are these:
1. You still have not provided a single example, and I can't find one from a major organization either.
2. Some criticism of Israel is motivated by anti-semitism. Not all people who criticize Israel are anti-Semites, but all anti-semites criticize Israel (they do exist, you know). When criticism of Israel moves beyond merely criticizing her government into blatant attempts to delegitimize the whole country and its people, then it is right and proper to call it what it is; anti-semitism.

BRinAsia

None of this is really on the original topic of whether or not Ralph Nader is racist, but I'll go ahead and respond at least this once more.

I agree with your 2nd point. I have seen (and deplore) bigotry on BOTH sides. But while there are some comments that fall clearly on one side or another, this is a topic with a sea of grey in the middle, and what seems to one person to be clearly on one side, may seem to another to be clearly on the other. From the attitude you have shown so far, I suspect we could easily be find ourselves on opposite sides over the same articles -- which is probably why I found what I thought were clear examples, but you didn't. That being the case, I don't think it is worth the time and space it would take to discuss specific articles.

This is an important but divisive topic, and the comments section of someone else's blog doesn't offer a very good opportunity to discuss it in much depth. Therefore, I think it is probably best to just "agree to differ."

Adam B.

BRinAsia, thanks for your reply. I agree that different people will read a different interpretation into some specific instances. The point I'm trying to make is that every critic of Israel always uses this argument, the implication being that Jews don't have a leg to stand on and so use the racism card - but when called to task, I have never seen anyone produce evidence. In my experience, the reverse is in fact true - real anti-semites attack Israel and then pretend to be merely criticizing Israel's government, and paint themselves to be the victim of a smear campaign when in fact it is them smearing the Jewish nation state. I think that, on the whole, Jewish organizations and the Israeli government avoid using the label "antisemitic" unless it is truly justified.

BRinAsia

Adam B, I thought my last comment would be my last, but your response gives me hope that a little further clarification might help.

Almost everyone who dares to criticise Israel publicly gets quickly labelled as anti-semitic -- even those who are Jews themselves are liable to be labelled traitors to their own people. Some, even some that I think are genuinely pro-Jewish and friends of Israel, get attacked so often that pretty soon "everyone knows that so-and-so is anti-semitic." In this kind of atmosphere it is hard not to feel that even Jewish organisations and the gov't of Israel are also in on it.

In my (very quick) search, I did not find any example of either the ADL or the gov't of Israel naming particular people as anti-semitic. But both had posted lists to show where they draw the line between legitimate criticism of the nation of Israel and its government and actual anti-semiitism.

Everything in the lists looked reasonable -- on the surface! But both lists included things that I have seen used (perhaps not directly by them, but certainly by others) to "demonise" and accuse of anti-semitism some people that I believe are really pro-Jewish and friends of Israel. For example, if you oppose the building of the barrier Wall and/or believe Israel should return to its pre-1967 borders, you are accused of not accepting that Israel has a right to defend itself. If you believe that some of the tactics used in trying to oust the British and establish the Jewish state amounted to terrorism, you are accused of denying the legitimacy of the state of Israel.

If Jewish organisations really want to refute the charge of complicity in this kind of labelling, they could define their terms and categories better and could -- should! -- speak out in defence of those who are falsely so labelled. My personal opinion is that they are happy to let it go on -- though I would be happy to be proven wrong.

TAT

Q. Is Nader a racist?

A. Probably not.

Q. Is there any point in taking seriously anything Stephen Pollard writes ever again, if, having presumably seen the interview all the way through, he could describe Nader as 'a nasty piece of work'?

A. Definitely not

Adam B.

BRinAsia, thanks for this. However, this is all very generalised - one has to look at specific circumstances to investigate and come up with any conclusions.

Micahel

I have to say that the reporter is a complete ass, typical of fox. Once again we can avoid the real issue of the welfare of working people. Typical Fox tactics, make the people turn against a person who fights for the ordinary people by focusing on moral outrage at an expression. Let Barak Obama be judged on what he delivers to the working people of the United States.

Steve

Inflammatory - certainly. Racist - never.

Skeptic

"Uncle Tom" is simply an expression meaning roughly "A Black man who does White People's bidding against his own interests", or "a toadie". OF COURSE it won't be used to describe a white man -- just "shrew" or "Lady Macbeth" won't be used to describe men, but only women.

The expression might not be the most politically correct one, but hardly "racist".

P.S.

It's no use trying to change the common meaning of the term, but calling a toady an "uncle Tom" does great injustice to the original character in the novel, which is well worth reading.