• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot: I'm only granting one-on-one interviews to journalists of color

 
 
 
You are mistaken, Derec. Her action isn't racist, it's commendable.

Independent writer who is a woman of colour but oddly has only her picture and no name attached to her article said:
Naturally, social media went into a whirlwind. Right wing media and provocateurs are claiming that Lightfoot refusing to speak to white journalists is racism, but I, and most sensible people, would argue it is anything but. It is not a racist action to attempt to promote equity,
Click to expand...

Of course it isn't! In fact, any policy that promotes equity is anti-racist. It's right there in the name!

especially when newsrooms maintain an environment that only comprises 17% of non-white staff, and 13% of non-white leadership. What is racist? The right wing men comparing Lightfoot’s natural hair to Beetlejuice because you disagree with her policy decisions.
Click to expand...

It's true the right have to own up to exclusive belittling of a person by reference to their physical features. The left has never mocked a leader for his obesity or skin complexion.


As a Black and Native American writer living in Harlem, I find Lori Lightfoot’s demands to only speak with journalists of color rather reasonable, and more importantly, commendable.
Click to expand...

The confession of naked self-interest was a tad unnecessary, I feel.

Lightfoot’s decision is a move to showcase journalists in Chicago who understand – or at least can sympathize with – her lived experience as a person of color in the region and who will write accessibly for her constituents.
Click to expand...

It's true that white people have no sympathy (it's a genetic mutation that came out of Europe), but the fact that white journalists cannot write 'accessibly' is a new failing on their part.

With newsrooms and journalism being so overwhelmingly white, and I mean that literally, to refuse to engage with white, male writers who can not fundamentally understand who she is governing for, is not a radical position. It’s sensible, and the right-wing media’s reaction shows us why.
Click to expand...

I thought she was governing for the people of Chicago, which I thought contained at least some white males.
 
Metaphor said:
YIt's true the right have to own up to exclusive belittling of a person by reference to their physical features. The left has never mocked a leader for his obesity or skin complexion.
Click to expand...
Or his hair.
 
Well, from what I hear, blacks can't be racist because they are not in positions of power. Er, something like that. But she's in a pretty powerful position (mayor of a large US city). So, does that mean she can be racist, because of her own powerful position? Or is it necessary for the governor of Illinois to be black before she can say racist things? Or the president? It's all so confusing...
 
Well, from what I hear, blacks can't be racist because they are not in positions of power. Er, something like that.
Click to expand...

It's not "something like that", it's exactly that.
Tom
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Derec said:
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot: I'm only granting one-on-one interviews to journalists of color

She has been a horrible mayor, but this blatant racism takes the cake.
Click to expand...

untermensche said:
It's no different from some Republicans only going on FOX.
Click to expand...

So? It's wrong in both cases.
Click to expand...

You and I agree that both politicians are wrong. But they are different. One is blatantly racist and the other blatantly partisan.

What the politicians have in common is supporters that will wave away blatant misbehavior.
Tom
 
untermensche said:
Metaphor said:
untermensche said:
It's no different from some Republicans only going on FOX.
Click to expand...

Oh yes? Does FOX refuse to interview people of colour?
Click to expand...

?

The Republicans escape questions they don't want by only going on FOX. They can spew lies unquestioned.

Like that woman is trying to do.
Click to expand...

I don't get the sense that Lightfoot is doing this because she wants to 'spew lies' while having a softball interview. If she wanted softball interviews, she could pre-select left-leaning journalists as suitable.
 
thebeave said:
Well, from what I hear, blacks can't be racist because they are not in positions of power. Er, something like that. But she's in a pretty powerful position (mayor of a large US city). So, does that mean she can be racist, because of her own powerful position? Or is it necessary for the governor of Illinois to be black before she can say racist things? Or the president? It's all so confusing...
Click to expand...

From talking to people who believe the "positions of power" argument, there is almost no configuration that would count.

Many years ago, I once asked Athena Awakened about a hypothetical situation--a prejudiced black judge who gave longer sentences to white criminals. Apparently, the judge's position of power was meaningless unless the entire judiciary was majority black, Congress majority black, the President black, the police force black, academia black, the local dog catcher black. Only then would having institutional power allow anti-white black people to be branded 'racist'. (Actually it wasn't even clear to me that that would be enough--because America will always have the 'legacy' of anti-black racism and that might be a get out of racism free card).
 
I can't believe anybody needs to spend four seconds debating over whether or not this policy is blatantly racist.

This policy is literally and blatantly racist, in case you'e still confused.
 
Talking about building a wall on the border with Mexico is racist too.

It is just more sophisticated.
 
untermensche said:
Talking about building a wall on the border with Mexico is racist too.

It is just more sophisticated.
Click to expand...

Ok.
I don't agree, exactly. To me, that's more nativist. I doubt that a poor Honduran who's pretty white is any more welcome than a really dark skinned Mexican.

But that's not relevant. Isn't blatant racism from high government officials a problem, regardless of their particular phenotype?

I think it is. If you disagree, please explain why.
Tom
 
LoAmmo said:
I can't believe anybody needs to spend four seconds debating over whether or not this policy is blatantly racist.

This policy is literally and blatantly racist, in case you'e still confused.
Click to expand...

I don't think normal people are confused. Influential pockets of the American left, however, would say Lightfoot is definitionally incapable of being racist, and indeed her actions are anti-racist.
 
LoAmmo said:
I can't believe anybody needs to spend four seconds debating over whether or not this policy is blatantly racist.

This policy is literally and blatantly racist, in case you'e still confused.
Click to expand...

It's not a "policy". She just granted some interviews, and wrote an open letter explaining why she had prioritized POC reporters for this particular occasion.
 
TomC said:
untermensche said:
Talking about building a wall on the border with Mexico is racist too.

It is just more sophisticated.
Click to expand...

Ok.
I don't agree, exactly. To me, that's more nativist. I doubt that a poor Honduran who's pretty white is any more welcome than a really dark skinned Mexican.

But that's not relevant. Isn't blatant racism from high government officials a problem, regardless of their particular phenotype?

I think it is. If you disagree, please explain why.
Tom
Click to expand...

Trump supporters never heard of Honduras. They couldn't find it on a map.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom