Look around the web, and you will find some vituperative leftist bloggers and tweeters condemning Donald Rumsfeld as a racist, based on his criticism of Barack Obama. True, any criticism of Barack Obama is presumptively racist—did anyone predict that an unintended consequence of the first black President would be de facto suppression of legitimate political criticism?—-but Rumsfeld, we are told, really proved he’s just like all conservatives, Republicans and teapartiers because he recently said, criticizing the Obama administration’s eminently criticizable policies in Afghanistan:
“A trained ape could get a status of forces agreement. It does not take a genius. And we have so mismanaged that relationship.”
GOTCHA! Comparing a black President to an ape! Proof positive of racial bigotry!
Except that, as Slate’s Jamelle Bouie has the integrity and decency to point out, the “trained ape” analogy is a Rumsfeld tool of long-standing, the metaphor he uses, and has used, in place of saying, “an idiot could figure this out.” I think my favorite version is “My Jack Russell Terrier could get a status of forces agreement,” but trained ape works just fine…except that when you say trained ape, a lot of liberals immediately start thinking about African-Americans. Odd.
The irony is that the fact that Rumsfeld didn’t blanch at using the same analogy for Obama’s incompetence that he would use for anyone else’s proves that he doesn’t think of the President as an ape or in any way ape-like. It is the reflex race-baiters who make that connection. They are the ones holding on to Jim Crow racist stereotypes; they are the ones who continue to see some connection between blacks and lower primates. They can’t let go of it: it’s so useful for unfairly tarring—oops! There we go again!—political adversaries as racists. Smart, mature, professional, unbigoted individuals like Rumsfeld get caught in these supposed gaffes because they are truly race-blind, as we all should be. Those who specialize in detecting “coded” racism are the real racists.
Or, as several wags have put it, “if you can hear the racist dog whistle, you might be the dog.”
____________________________
Sources: Slate
Graphic: Deviant Art
Ethics Alarms 
An old saying from my childhood “The one who smelt it dealt it.”
Shortly after I started work at a science company, a fellow rank-and-file schmuck was disciplined for racist remarks after a black coworker complained. His racism? Referring (to HIMSELF, not to her, she held an entirely different job) as a “lab monkey.” Because “monkey” used in any sort of mocking way is racist, you see, and that phrase sounded too much like “porch monkey.”
That’s absurd – he didn’t say the president was an ape! He distinctly pointed out that he was NOT an ape. He said he was more inept than an ape would be in the same position. Still insulting, but true.
And I agree with the central premise that Barack Obama, is, in fact, smarter and more capable than an ape, generally speaking. Just not better than an ape at certain things. I bet he could dunk a basketball on a trained ape all day.
Or, perhaps Donald Rumsfeld has always used that trained ape saying as code for “even a [black person] could have done that.” Thus, the racism holds — or doesn’t — depending on whatever is in Rumsfeld’s heart. And I think it’s stupid to speculate about such things.
Stupid, true, and creates a case for the Thought Police.
No, it is code for “even an [Irish person] could have done that”
No, Michael, Irish people are white, they’ve never known REAL discrimination (actual thing I’ve been told, except they didn’t call me Michael)
With all due respect the truly enlightened know Irish people count as NON-white, because ‘white’ is a construct, not a literal description of race.
I have yet to hear any Irish people comment on this subject.
*the truly enlightened KNOW
Sorry, that changes the meaning just a little.
The Irish people have known real discrimination.
In the US as well as Ireland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_people
My apologies: I absolutely didn’t mean to imply that that wasn’t the case.
And with all due respect back at you, good luck mentioning the concept that the Irish have been discriminated against, here or in Ireland, is going to most likely be met with a smirk and the reminder that they’re white. And “White” is no more a construct or less a true race than “Black,” but it’s still used as a common and general descriptor. Unless, of course, you think that a native of Ireland could apply for some help from the NAACP on the grounds that they’re not white…
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think we may actually be in agreement here.
More directly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_racism
Or as memorialized in Blazing Saddles:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boO4RowROiw
Yep. If your wife gives birth to a red-headed kid, you know some durn Hibernian suck in your bedroom window one night and probably drank up all your beer afterwards.
A) Why do/should we or anyone else care one way or the other if Rumsfeld is racist or not? His racism or lack of it is irrelevant.
B) The use of the term “ape” is loaded, whether you or anyone on this blog likes it or not. Seriously? So, I should have to remember that Rumsfeld famously used that insult for anyone of any color? Sorry. An educated person, even one politically motivated, ought to choose their insults more wisely.
C) I DON’T care what he says. And even if I am inclined to see his statement as racist (I am not so inclined, incidentally), his statements are irrelevancies. If GWB said something similar (which he would not do, because he WOULD choose his insults more wisely), I would pay attention, because he would have a right to criticize as he has been POTUS. Rumsfeld has not.
Well, Rumsfeld cares, for one thing, if he is falsely labelled a racist. This occurs because people have a vendetta to pursue, and it is part of attacking Republicans generally. He is a prominent one, respected, and a leaders, hence if he’s a racist…
I refuse to criticize anyone who uses a metaphor like that, or “tar baby,’ or “niggardly,” or Washington Redskins because they are not on constant alert to race-baiting and the political correctness police. The best way to have a race-neutral, unbiased society is to talk to all races and creeds the same way, and to presume that they are fair and smart and secure enough not to assume malice where none exists.
That’s right…
And when W was president, you never heard a single “Chimpy McHitler” anywhere.
get bent. Your hypocrisy is boring.
Please read my later comments before you label me a hypocrite and make pronouncements about what I should or shouldn’t do.
Somebody, and I don’t remember who, recently said “The best way to stop discrimination is to STOP DISCRIMINATING!” And by that I assume he or she meant stop looking at color altogether…a wise idea if you ask me.
A couple of observations here: 1) What is it with those who fancy themselves to be the only, authentic, anti-racists that they display what can only be described as an obsession with race? Remember when Francis was named Pope? Numerous well-meaning people said “Hoo-rah! The Church has named its first Hispanic Pope.” “Not so fast,” said critics on the left. “Is he really Hispanic? As far as we can see, he’s just an Italian whose ancestors moved to Argentina enough years back that he can pretend he’s Hispanic, but he’s not a REAL Hispanic.” 2) When critics accuse others of speaking in coded language, that itself is code for “Your actual statements are not making my case for me, so I will instead substitute words that, though you never said them, serve my purpose better.”
What is it with them? Simple- they derive a lot of political and social power from the ability to cry racism when things dont’ go their own way, or sling allegations of racism against those they oppose. However, a weapon is much more valuable if you are the only one who can control it, so while simultaneously using race, racism, and race-baiting as primary weapons, there is still the need to control the discussion and find ways to prohibit others from gaining a foothold. Hence the rise of the “coded statement” concept. If you try to argue against my claims of racism, I just start saying that you’re making coded racist statements to hold the high ground.
Likewise, I never heard anyone say that racism didn’t exist because we had a hispanic Pope- but to control the language, those who trade in race-baiting have to make sure that people stay divided, that there’s infinite subgroups (“hispanic” versus “generations have lived in Argentina but isn’t REALLY hispanic enough”) to play against each other and accuse of appropriating each others culture.
I recall one of the abhorrent online infotainment mags (Slate?) starting the campaign early to claim that Bobby Jindal must not consider himself to be a “real” Indian, because he became a Catholic in college. I’m seriously, the gist of it was that he was a traitor to his race. This was an article written by a white person.
Who were these critics on the left?
Rumsfeld may be a few things, but he’s not a fool, and as such he has to know you don’t dangle certain things that are electromagnets for criticism. If you speak out against gay marriage or gay issues generally, even if there is a kernel of truth to what you have to say or you have a valid point, don’t be surprised when Dan Savage unleashes his poison pen on you and says asshole and fuck-you-fuck-your-family-fuck-everyone-who-looks-like-you. Any mention of monkeys or apes in the same sentence with black people, even if it’s not actively saying that black people are monkeys or using obvious terms like “porch monkey,” is going to be seen as disgusting racism and jumped on by the race hucksters. Don’t hand the enemy the bullet to shoot you with.
Thank you, Steve-O-in-NJ. These were the points I was trying to make. Choose your insults more wisely.
No. Behaving as if ridiculous political correctness bullies are anything but self-anointed public censors gives them power and legitimacy. You don’t use the words to intentionally annoy them, but if that’s the analogy you want to make and no slur is intended, then use it. Otherwise, this gets worse and worse.
“Hail to the Redskins!”
Here’s the problem, Jack. By choosing unwisely, attention is deflected from the substance of what he said. Our relationship with Afghanistan is in chaos, and Rumsfeld’s statement about that is weakened by an unwise mention about apes.
Yes, that’s a valid point.
You’re kind of missing one crucial point, Jack – these people DO have as much power and legitimacy as the media gives them, and right now that’s a lot. Building on what Patrice said, you can give a whole lecture pointing out the problems with the ACA, or how badly the current administration has handled the war on terror, or the First Amendment issues that gay marriage implicates, and you can hit an hour’s worth of valid points, but if you throw out one political correctness trigger, people – and the media, if public – will remember only the trigger and not the valid points.
My ears seem to be burning… Are “you people” talking about me?