What is acceptable language?

A reader of VFR has repeatedly lashed me for my prior references (I think there were two of them) to Barack Obama as a “nonwhite leftist messiah.” The reader said that this was inappropriate and seemingly racist, that it would marginalize VFR, and that it was just, well, cringe-worthy. The discussion went on until I pointed out that numerous mainstream conservative websites have repeatedly called Obama “the Magic Negro,” without anyone’s saying that this was racist. The reader had no reply. I hope this means I am in the clear.

- end of initial entry -

Howard Sutherland writes:

Obama is trying to be (I think I heard this term from Steve Sailer) The Numinous Negro. For examples, think of any number of Morgan Freeman paterfamilias roles—including God.

Adela Gereth writes:

Perhaps this reader needs to be reacquainted with the concept of “context”. You have referred to Obama as a “nonwhite leftist messiah” in the context of his being an unacceptable leader of a majority-white traditionalist nation. Your description, therefore, encapsulates just why he is unacceptable in that context.

On the other hand, I would agree with the reader if, for example, when discussing Obama’s position on abortion or homosexual marriage, you wrote, “the nonwhite senator from Illinois, Barack Obama…” In that context, your mentioning his being nonwhite would clearly be inappropriate and seemingly racist.

To answer the question posed in your subject heading, I would reply that all language is acceptable—when placed in the appropriate context. Even such ugly words as the N-word could appropriately be spelled out in full in, say, a legal or legislative proceeding. Really, context is all.

Bo Sears writes:

The term “racist” is largely a one-word summary of “you thoughtless, hurtful, denigrating, stereotype-ridden bigot” in these days of inexact discourse and weak vocabularies, so let me assure you that the language you have chosen to use is not “racist.” However, the use of “messiah” is unhelpful—I think you really mean that a romantic, emotive cult-like environment has grown around Obama. The term “leftist” is perfectly fair and exact according to contemporary usage. The “nonwhite” is hardly insulting except it is strictly speaking inaccurate—he is half black African and half white American. So a better way to say what you were saying would be “racially-diverse leftist cult-object.”

But, really, anyone can call you or anyone else anything, but no one can marginalize your blog with the usage you display.

LA replies:

“So a better way to say what you were saying would be ‘racially-diverse leftist cult-object.’”

LOL.

Bill Carpenter writes:

This string is about how deeply our minds and nervous systems have been conditioned by liberalism. Of course, there is a double standard in objecting to your reference to someone’s race but not objecting to a liberal’s reference. The double standard arises from a more or less accurate assessment of the differences in thought and intent that underlie the references. When a liberal complains that Obama is occupying the role of Magic Negro, the intent is to criticize the insufficiently liberal, universalist, egalitarian attitudes of the unenlightened multitudes who cannot regard him simply as a human being without asking him to be a metaphor, or a god. The criticism is dishonest, because the liberal is not really egalitarian but is torn between a sense of racial superiority (in social and political competence) and inferiority (guilt for white privilege and historical injustice and for consciousness of the resulting superiority in social and political competence). The liberal obecting to the Magic Negro probably harbors an attachment to the Magic Liberal, whose enlightened self-sacrifice will remove his sense of guilt. When a traditionalist makes the same criticism, the intent is to identify the mass delusion of liberal society, which, crushed by guilt at having failed to make reality conform to its egalitarian utopian ideal, audaciously hopes that a renewed intensification of racial socialism, disguised and submerged in universal socialism, and symbolized by “sharing” the ultimate social good with nonwhites, the presidency of the United States, will bring utopia into existence. The liberal speaks from within white guilt, the traditionalist does not. Freedom from white guilt is thoughtcrime.

(Perhaps “realist” would be a better label than “traditionalist,” which may emphasize the retrospective aspect of this enterprise at the cost of deemphasizing our intention to respond creatively to new conditions—which is one of the best traditions of the West.)

LA replies:

I thought had seen conservatives saying “Magic Negro,” but was not aware that liberals were complaining about the term. Now, via Google, I see that “Magic Negro” is an established phrase, even with its own Wikipedia article, and not coined by conservatives expressing skepticism about Obama, but by liberals mocking whites’ desire to find a non-threatening black. This article is from the L.A. Times, March 19, 2007:

Obama the ‘Magic Negro’
The Illinois senator lends himself to white America’s idealized, less-than-real black man.
By David Ehrenstein,

AS EVERY CARBON-BASED life form on this planet surely knows, Barack Obama, the junior Democratic senator from Illinois, is running for president. Since making his announcement, there has been no end of commentary about him in all quarters—musing over his charisma and the prospect he offers of being the first African American to be elected to the White House.

But it’s clear that Obama also is running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination—the “Magic Negro.”

The Magic Negro is a figure of postmodern folk culture, coined by snarky 20th century sociologists, to explain a cultural figure who emerged in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education. “He has no past, he simply appears one day to help the white protagonist,” reads the description on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro .

He’s there to assuage white “guilt” (i.e., the minimal discomfort they feel) over the role of slavery and racial segregation in American history, while replacing stereotypes of a dangerous, highly sexualized black man with a benign figure for whom interracial sexual congress holds no interest. [cont.]

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 06, 2008 11:56 AM | Send