PDA

View Full Version : Video: Is Rush Limbaugh's consistent reference to Obama as a 'little child' racist?



stephanie
12-22-2009, 08:02 PM
O-m-G:lame2:

December 21, 4:44 PMPolitical Buzz ExaminerRyan WittPrevious Next 11


Rush Limbaugh refers to President Obama as a child. AP Photo Ron EdmondsRush Limbaugh has recently adopted the theme of referring to President Obama as a little child when attacking the administration's various political moves.

Today Limbaugh referred to President Obama as an "out of control little child who thinks that he is the Messiah" while criticizing the federal spending. Last week Limbaugh also referred to the President as a "little man-child" when government expansion. These are the two most recent references and Media Matters documents at least six other occasion including times when Limbaugh used the phrase "boy" in referencing an adult Obama.

Curiously these references have drawn little scrutiny from the press or Limbaugh's followers. It is possible that the media has simply grown to expect a hint of racism from Limbaugh and that they therefore view it as a "non-story." On the other hand Limbaugh is still perhaps the most influential right-wing commentator in the United States. Therefore if his statements truly do reflect a racist stereotype it seems the story should get more attention given Limbaugh's importance to the political debate.

One does not have to reach far to find racist references to adult African-Americans as "little children" or "child-like." The stereotype developed of the racist stereotype that African-Americans were more animal-like and therefore acted like children even when fully-matured. For example Rudyard Kipling's famous poem "The White Man's Burden" referred to other, non-European peoples as "half-devil and half-child." In addition, some have historically adopted the racist viewpoint that African-Americans are somehow less morally culpable for wrong actions because, like a child, they have less ability to reason and act rationally.

It seems that Limbaugh's references to President Obama reflect upon this racist stereotype. Rather than attacking President as simply being wrong in his actions Limbaugh seems to be consistently painting a picture of an African-American President who is a little child ruining everything that makes America great. Instead of attacking President Obama for reasoning in the wrong way Limbaugh suggests that the President is not reasoning at all but rather acting like an adolescent with these references.

For example many would agree that government spending is excessive but there are also legitimate arguments that such spending is necessary to spur economic growth. Instead of countering that kind of reasoning Limbaugh simply portrays the President as a "power thirsty man-child" who simply wants more power.


lots of comments and the rest..
http://www.examiner.com/x-5738-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m12d21-Video--Is-Rush-Limbuaghs-consistent-reference-to-Obama-as-a-little-child-racist

HogTrash
12-22-2009, 09:04 PM
According to the loyal raptured sheep who blindly follow Obama.

Anything negative about him or his policies is considered "racist".

Noir
12-22-2009, 09:10 PM
Racist? No.
Condescending? Yes

HogTrash
12-22-2009, 09:19 PM
Racist? No.
Condescending? Yes"Obama is a lowlife piece of shit!"

Now that is not condescending, but is it racist?

stephanie
12-22-2009, 09:25 PM
Racist? No.
Condescending? Yes


I guess you weren't following all the names that they called President Bush, eh?:poke:

Missileman
12-22-2009, 09:30 PM
"Obama is a lowlife piece of shit!"

Now that is not condescending, but is it racist?

It may well be racist depending on the color of the shit. :laugh2:

Noir
12-22-2009, 09:34 PM
"Obama is a lowlife piece of shit!"

Now that is not condescending, but is it racist?

Racist? No.
Rude? Yes.

You should really know yourself without having to ask me.

Noir
12-22-2009, 09:37 PM
I guess you weren't following all the names that they called President Bush, eh?:poke:

Why would you say that? Some of the names used to describe bush were also rude and condescending, as I'm sure were the names given to Clinton, though I was too young to have followed that.

HogTrash
12-23-2009, 07:03 PM
It may well be racist depending on the color of the shit. :laugh2:I would be more concerned about the smell rather than the color.

HogTrash
12-23-2009, 07:04 PM
Racist? No.
Rude? Yes.

You should really know yourself without having to ask me.Considering who we are talking about, it is definately not "rude".

Noir
12-23-2009, 07:52 PM
Considering who we are talking about, it is definately not "rude".

Rude-


1. discourteous or impolite, esp. in a deliberate way: a rude reply.
2. without culture, learning, or refinement: rude, illiterate peasants.
3. rough in manners or behavior; unmannerly; uncouth.
4. rough, harsh, or ungentle: rude hands.
5. roughly wrought, built, or formed; of a crude construction or kind: a rude cottage.
6. not properly or fully developed; raw; unevolved: a rude first stage of development.
7. harsh to the ear: rude sounds.
8. without artistic elegance; of a primitive simplicity: a rude design.
9. violent or tempestuous, as the waves.
10. robust, sturdy, or vigorous: rude strength.
11. approximate or tentative: a rude first calculation of costs.

At no point does it mention that there must be context as to who rude comments are being directed.

HogTrash
12-23-2009, 08:10 PM
Rude-


1. discourteous or impolite, esp. in a deliberate way: a rude reply.
2. without culture, learning, or refinement: rude, illiterate peasants.
3. rough in manners or behavior; unmannerly; uncouth.
4. rough, harsh, or ungentle: rude hands.
5. roughly wrought, built, or formed; of a crude construction or kind: a rude cottage.
6. not properly or fully developed; raw; unevolved: a rude first stage of development.
7. harsh to the ear: rude sounds.
8. without artistic elegance; of a primitive simplicity: a rude design.
9. violent or tempestuous, as the waves.
10. robust, sturdy, or vigorous: rude strength.
11. approximate or tentative: a rude first calculation of costs.

At no point does it mention that there must be context as to who rude comments are being directed.Perhaps, being a well known fact, they didn't think it was necessary? :dunno:

Noir
12-23-2009, 08:21 PM
Perhaps, being a well known fact, they didn't think it was necessary? :dunno:


Obviously

/sark