Bill O’Reilly should have been fired before he made fun of Maxine Waters’ hair. Now would be the worst time imaginable to fire the blow-hard, untrustworthy Fox News pundit, because it would allow partisans to silence an opinion-maker whose opinions they hate by employing shameless and unjustified race-baiting. That tactic, employed repeatedly and futilely against Rush Limbaugh and other high profile conservatives, is unethical, and must not be validated by success.
In case you don’t follow O’Reilly, 1) I salute your taste and time management, and 2) here’s what caused the controversy:
O’Reilly was stopping by the set of “Fox and Friends,” and along with the gang on the couch watched some of Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters’ speech attacking President Trump. After the clip, O’Reilly said, “I didn’t hear a word she said. I was looking at the James Brown wig.”
Being in the Land of the Dimwits, O’Reilly sparked an idiotic defense from co-host Ainsley Earhardt, who said, fatuously, “You can’t go after a woman. Plus, I think she’s very attractive.”
Why in the world can’t you “go after a woman” when the woman is an elected official who says ridiculous things as routinely as clockwork? Earhardt’s statement was sexist on its face, and as O’Reilly quickly found out, it wasn’t sexism that he was going to be accused of with his mean James Brown wig comment. By the way…
…he had a point.
It’s a nasty, ad hominem, unprofessional point, however, that lowers political discourse into the gutter. O’Reilly has been doing this in various ways from the beginning of his career, when he wasn’t misrepresenting his credentials, his conduct, or other matters. This, however, was a relatively minor example.
Never mind though: Waters is black, so by the infinitely adjustable weaponizing definition of racism used by progressives, black activists and Democrats for the previous eight years, to criticize her at all is to be a racist. This was a sub-version; criticizing a black woman’s hair is racist. OK, comparing a black woman’s wig to an iconic black soul singer’s wig is racist. Or something: just cry racism, and the hope is that it will tar O’Reilly so badly that he will become unemployable, and no progressive will ever have their blood pressure raised by him again.
All over social media, progressives of note and non-note called for Bill’s head because his comment was “racist.” This really takes chutzpah, since mocking Donald Trump’s hair and skin-color virtually became a national pastime in Leftist Land during the 2016 campaign, and is still. What’s the standard being advocated here? Calling a white President”s comeover anything from a dead animal to decomposing vegetables is perfectly acceptable political discourse, but comparing a black House member’s wig to the hair of a dead rock icon is too horrible to tolerate? The Washington Post published a feature called “The 100 Greatest Descriptions of Donald Trump;s Hair” last June. It included such entries as
- A mullet that died in some horrific accident
- Combed like he’s televangelist Benny Hinn.
- Like Biff, from “Back to the Future”
- Like Lucille Ball
- Like a troll doll
And most worthy of discussion, this:
His hair] resembles the behavior of alpha chimps who, as primatologist Frans de Waal reports in ‘Chimpanzee Politics,’ make their hair stand on end in order to look large
…which, of course, if O’Reilly had said about any black politician, would have had him fired and working at a bait shop within mere seconds. But if comparing Waters’ hair to James Brown is racist, why isn’t comparing Trump’s to Benny Hinn’s, Biff’s (the idiot bully in “Back to the Future”), or Lucille Ball’s not racist too? Please make that argument, someone: I can’t wait to laugh at it.
Joy Reid, the race-baiting MSNBC host (make that “one of many race-baiting MSNBC hosts), tweeted,
“I seem to recall Don Imus being fired for similar commentary about black women; though in that case, not about a *member of congress.*”
Joy, not atypically, recalls wrongly, or even less atypically, is lying and deceiving her followers. Imus and his raunchy radio crew referred to a women’s black college basketball team as “ho’s” and “nappy-headed.” O’Reilly’s statement was not “similar.” It was similar, indeed, identical to the ad hominem, appearance-based attacks on Donald Trump that Reid never found anything but hilarious, because, you know, he deserves it: this is the New York Times rule on how Trump suspends ethical principles for journalists.Such attacks are unprofessional journalism and punditry, but are not racist in any way.
What O’Reilly was trying to convey is that Waters is ridiculous and an embarrassment. Ironically, she is embarrassing to her profession in roughly the same way that O’Reilly is embarrassing to his. Here. for example, is a recent tweet from Ms. Waters:
Nice. Also completely unfair, evidence-free, and irresponsible for anyone in her position. Such a tweet on similar evidence (none) would justify a libel suit if the target was a private citizen. Would it be less “racist” to attack Water’s integrity, professionalism and intellectual acumen than to make fun of her wig? No, it would be exactly as racist, as in “not racist at all.” It would be, however a lot more professional and fair.
O’Reilly, since he knows a losing hand when he is dealt one, has apologized, though he could not have made it clearer that he believed the matter was over-blown, saying,
“As I have said many times, I respect Congresswoman Maxine Waters for being sincere in her beliefs. I said that again today on ‘Fox and Friends,’ calling her ‘old school.’ Unfortunately, I also made a jest about her hair, which was dumb. I apologize.”
This is straight-up Level 7 Apology:
“A forced or compelled [apology] in which the individual (or organization) apologizing may not sincerely believe that an apology is appropriate, but chooses to show the victim or victims of the act inspiring it that the individual responsible is humbling himself and being forced to admit wrongdoing by the society, the culture, legal authority, or an organization or group that the individual’s actions reflect upon or represent .”
No, it will do more harm than good to fire O’Reilly based on a hypocritical and cynical definition of racism when what he was really doing was taking an ad hominem cheap shot, like mocking Donald Trump’s hair.
It should wait a while until this blows over, and then fire him for being Bill O’Reilly.
[Full disclosure: I was a guest on O’Reilly’s show about five years ago. He could not have been nicer. I suspect I will not be getting another chance,]
Ethics Alarms 
Because blacks don’t want equality, they don’t want achievement, they want permanent victim status, where no one can deny them or criticize them. It’s a slow walk to the same place college students are sprinting to now.
BTW, you haven’t lived until you’ve seen Bill standing next to Kristin Chenoweth, looking like something out of Brobdingnag. I find it odd that he would even attend an event hosted by her, given their disparate views on a few things. (he never could see his way clear on gay marriage though he was in favor of civil unions, while Kristin is a gay icon)
Not to stereotype, but isn’t every Broadway diva a gay icon? I can’t think of one who wasn’t or isn’t. Kristin isn’t gay; she has stood up for gay actors criticized for not being able to butch it up enough to play straight characters—a pet peeve of mine, and not just in musicals. Yes, Bill is huge, and she is tiny.
Her belt dives me crazy…
A lot of them are. For whatever reason the gay community seems to really love female singers with powerful, emotive voices and troubled personal lives. Sarah Brightman and Idina Menzel are two other examples. Not sure when last I went to an actual production, although it was definitely before 2014, but I have never seen anyone’s mask slip while onstage.
BTW, if Kristin stood up, would anyone notice? 😀 Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Idina and Kristin have troubled personal lives? I know Idina got divorced, but so does 50% of all married people.
And Kristin never married and treats her dog like a kid. That said, neither of them is close to Sarah, who has had a pretty ah, interesting journey, including facing up to the painful fact that she will not be able to have children of her own.
Actually, this is a reply to Spartan, and I hit the wrong button…
I am really getting sick of this 50%-of-marriages-end-in-divorce statistic. Do you know how HHS (or whomever) they figure this out? They take the total marriages in a given year and compare/contrast it to the total divorces in the SAME YEAR. So, in 2016, for example, they might show 500,000 marriages and 250,000 divorces. Ergo (!) 50% of marriages end in divorce. Does that make any sense at all if you think about it? What about the people married in previous years — 2, 5, 10, 20, years ago who happened to get divorced in 2016? Those people and their divorces are figured into the 2016 figures and thus oft-quoted 50% divorce rate statistic. It does not mean that 50% of all marriages end in divorce. Think about it.
This is just one more example of misuing/miscalculating statistics to make our culture seem even less viable than it really is. Stop it!
Hey, how do you know single people are smarter than married people? Because if they weren’t, they’d be married too!
What do you think the number is? Personally, I don’t really care, but I do see divorced families everywhere.
I really don’t know, but assume it’s going up with the ‘younger’ generations (including mine) who don’t have to ‘stick it out’ or even work it out. I do know that the method for coming up with the 50% statistic is flawed, and, like so many flawed statistics, is quoted all the time. There must be a better way to check this out, but I haven’t found it.
That stat has not been true for a long time, if ever. Just sayin’ 🙂
I’ve written on it multiple times here. It’s one that I have a standing vow to debunk it every time it turns up, like the 77 cents stat, but E2 beat me to it.
Steve:
Because blacks don’t want equality, they don’t want achievement, they want permanent victim status, where no one can deny them or criticize them.
O’Reilly’s statement wasn’t racist, but this one definitely is. You are making negative generalizations about “blacks” as a group based on the actions of a few; that is one of the most commonly accepted definitions of racism in our society.
That’s why blacks still claimed victimhood in the BLACK city of Baltimore with a BLACK mayor, a BLACK police commissioner, and a majority BLACK city council. That’s why we still hear grumbling after 8 years of a BLACK president with a BLACK attorney general, and that’s why BLACK leaders in New York wanted police-free zones, although they had their chance with a BLACK mayor. It doesn’t matter if a city or state government looks like the government of Nigeria, the ghetto dwellers are never satisfied.
Jesus. You’re just doubling down on the racism, aren’t you? “Ghettor dwellers?” What the fuck?
Is there anything I said there that isn’t true? And what’s a “ghettor?”
You’re making generalizations about huge groups of people, which are always untrue. And you know that was a typo, you ass. “Ghetto dwellers” is a racial slur, and you clearly meant it that way. You are having one of your “angry moments.” Put on your big boy pants, re-read what you wrote, and try to express yourself in a less blatantly racist way.
As usual, you brushed past every fact I stated about NY and Baltimore. Ghetto dwellers means those who live in the ghetto, genius, it has nothing to do with color. If I’d meant to use an out and out slur I would have.
Steve:
That’s why blacks still claimed victimhood in the BLACK city of Baltimore with a BLACK mayor, a BLACK police commissioner, and a majority BLACK city council. That’s why we still hear grumbling after 8 years of a BLACK president with a BLACK attorney general, and that’s why BLACK leaders in New York wanted police-free zones, although they had their chance with a BLACK mayor. It doesn’t matter if a city or state government looks like the government of Nigeria, the ghetto dwellers are never satisfied.
Also Steve:
Ghetto dwellers means those who live in the ghetto, genius, it has nothing to do with color.
Are you fucking kidding me? Why would you think for one second that you would get away with this type of dishonesty on this blog, of all places? Do you think everyone here is stupid? What’s wrong with you?
No, I am not “fucking kidding you,” Chris. You took the statement “ghetto dwellers,” standing on its own, as racist. It isn’t, nor is it a specific reference to color. That specific reference is a reference to an attitude – the attitude of unambitious folks who think this block belongs to them because dammit, their family’s lived here for four generations, so the landlord better come quick when called, but he better not up the rent, and those government checks better keep coming, and the cops better not bother us, because nobody saw nothing. In this case it is the black ghetto, but that attitude is by no means unique to blacks. It is, however, definitely NOT the attitude that led the Irish and Italians who used to populate much of Newark and the inner boroughs to work to the point where they could start buying houses in the suburbs and move their families to better lives, nor that which brought the East Indians who a generation ago were concentrated in Edison and the surrounding area’s deteriorating but still sound post-WW2 housing to do the same.
Yes, I was otherwise making the point that Baltimore, Detroit, New Orleans, and more than a few other large cities have gotten to the point where blacks are in charge. In some cases like Detroit they have been in charge for decades. There is no one else to blame now for those places’ multiplicity of municipal ills, yet they still cry racism and try to point fingers elsewhere when it’s time to start pointing into the mirror. I was also making the point that they had both Obama and his two attorney generals on their side (despite the fact that they are what,15% of the population?) and the most favorable climate in decades, but instead of building bridges with the other 85% they’ve burned them, not the least with the near-war on law enforcement of the last 2 years of Obama’s time in office.
There’s nothing wrong with me, or dishonest about me, Chris. I happen to just call it as I see it, and I don’t play political correctness. My views on a lot of things don’t coincide with yours. If you have a problem with that, I am afraid that is your problem to deal with.
You’ve taken it upon yourself to battle not only me, but at least five other regular commenters here who are decidedly right of center. You’re not going to change our minds, any more than that woman who said flyover country better start electing progressive city councils was likely to get them to do so simply by ranting about it. Occasionally you have something to add to the discussion, but more often than not you are just railing against those who don’t think like you. This whole blog is littered with your rants and angry posts, and there are too many threads that go on well past the point of anything substantive being said because you always have to have the last word.
I said in another post that one of my major problems with strong atheists is that they are often wet blankets and pains in the ass in daily life. They always have to be heard, they always have to be right, and they always have to have the last word. You’ve never waded into the theist/non-theist discussions here with any level of gusto, but I have to say, you display the same obnoxious, difficult, almost fanatical attitude (in the sense of someone who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject) as a Ben Grimm (Dutch atheist, nothing to do with Marvel Comics) or a Christopher Hitchens, both of whom are/were hard to swallow even in small doses. If this were Facebook or Twitter I would have blocked you long ago, and blocking isn’t something I do lightly. I can’t speak for the other people you insist on butting heads with, but I can’t imagine they think of you with the warmest regards either.
You’re 26-27 (you described yourself as 11 on 9/11), and you talk and act like you have all the answers. I was there once, 20 years ago, and I thought I had all the answers, butted heads with those who I disagreed with, and even had the temerity to think getting angry would move them off their way of thinking. It didn’t get me very far, just like it’s not going to get you very far. 20 years down the road I KNOW I’m nowhere near close to having even 20% of the answers to the questions, big and small, that life throws at me.
I’m not signing your paycheck at the end of the week, and I’m not going to write up your yearly evaluation, so what I have said here probably means very little to you. That said, one day someone who thinks differently than you do may be in just that position, or worse, in the position of being someone you are going to have to deal with, like your father-in-law or your brother-in-law. I would not suggest you use this same approach with them.
I was just sittin’ here in my new rockin’ chair — broke the old one jumpin’ up and down at every Jersey turn o’ phrase — just listening to your chastising the young-un. Seeing as I have over 30 years on you Steve-O, I’d like a little respect here, boy! Why, I’ve forgotten more than you’ll ever forgotten more than … what …. dang it …. must’ve stuck it up in the closet
Yup. To everything Steve said.
Well, glad you can all agree that I’m the bad guy for taking issue with Steve’s angry rant about how much black people suck.
Nope, Chris. We all just agree that YOU suck.
Jeez. Come on.
With respect, Jack, this one’s been a long time in coming. You can’t butt heads with multiple people, sometimes in a very rude fashion, most of whom are older and more experienced than you, and not expect to get put in your place eventually. Either Chris has taken it upon himself to become some kind of enforcer, or he is one of those people who just sits up at night thinking that somewhere out there people on the internet are wrong. It’s obvious he’s not well liked here, at least three other posters have slammed him hard, yet, like a punch-drunk boxer who doesn’t know when he’s beaten, he keeps staggering back into the fight. I’m not going to engage in a cluster-f-bomb campaign or make threats or anything like that, I’m in full control of my faculties and I’m not going to go Mr. Hyde, but it’s moved past the point of disagreement to personal animus here. It’s obvious Chris and I are unlikely to agree on anything, and it’s also obvious we dislike each other. It should come as no surprise that gets expressed.
Pure name-calling and denigration without substance just wastes space and is self-indulgent.
And Chris is the KING of self-indulgence on this blog. His post count is probably ridiculously high, all because he always has to butt heads with the outspoken conservatives, even though he isn’t going to change anyone’s mind, and always has to have the last word, even after everything of substance has been said. I know you seldom tell people to wind up a discussion here, but if anyone’s a candidate to occasionally be told to wind up a discussion that’s not going any place or where both sides have had their say, or where it’s on the verge of getting ugly (yes, I know I have made my share of ugly posts), lest he be tagged for abusing the posting privilege here, it’s him.
I see no reason for any debate to turn personal like this. Chris’s comment number is currently high, but no higher than others at various times, Texagg04 once lapped me for a few weeks. tgt reached similar volume in his heighday. You surely can see why Chris feels besieged from time to time.
I can’t believe that both of you aren’t able to make the same points powerfully without stooping to “racist,” ” liar,” and “you suck.”
hat’s why blacks still claimed victimhood in the BLACK city of Baltimore with a BLACK mayor, a BLACK police commissioner, and a majority BLACK city council. That’s why we still hear grumbling after 8 years of a BLACK president with a BLACK attorney general, and that’s why BLACK leaders in New York wanted police-free zones, although they had their chance with a BLACK mayor. It doesn’t matter if a city or state government looks like the government of Nigeria, the ghetto dwellers are never satisfied.
This isn’t a rant about how much black people suck?
What would be, then?
It’s an argument that race is used as a complaint even when the context doesn’t make sense. I think characterizing it as “black people suck” unfairly turns the discussion emotional and personal.
You are right that the last reference certainly sounds like “ghetto dweller” is intended as a synonym for “blacks.” If Steve-O says that’s not what he meant, the ethical response would be to accept that. No?
You took the statement “ghetto dwellers,” standing on its own, as racist. It isn’t, nor is it a specific reference to color.
You are a liar, Steve.
This was your complete sentence:
It doesn’t matter if a city or state government looks like the government of Nigeria, the ghetto dwellers are never satisfied.
It was abundantly clear in the context of that sentence, as well as the rest of your paragraph, that your term “ghetto dwellers” was about black people.
Anyone who helps you continue to lie about this is an enabler.
Chris wrote, “Anyone who helps you continue to lie about this is an enabler.”
Sit BooBoo sit. Nice attack doggy.
I see you’re going to continue to use Liberal critical thinking no matter what anyone says; that’s your choice.
Have you ever seriously considered that you might be wrong about something?
Again: Personally I think you need to reeducate yourself on the differences between prejudice, bigotry, racism and how to identify someone who is a bigot or a racist. Right now it looks like you are having some knee-jerk reactions to statements and claiming that something is racism when racism may not exist – that’s unethical.
So let it be written, so let it be done.
Please don’t reply to this comment.
Here are the facts…
Steve-O-in-NJ wrote, “You took the statement “ghetto dwellers,” standing on its own, as racist. It isn’t, nor is it a specific reference to color.”
Chris wrote, “You are a liar, Steve.”
Chris,
Steve-O-in-NJ is factually correct, you are factually incorrect. You did in fact cherry pick the phrase “Ghettor dwellers?” out of his comment and directly imply/call that specific phrase racist that is a fact and you called Steve-O-in-NJ a liar for stating a fact .
My opinion: Chris if you are commenting about an entire comment and not just a specific cherry picked phrase, the quote all of what your comment is referring to. You were wrong to call steve a liar.
Here’s my question:
Chris based on those facts and your method of falsely identifying what a liar is; should we all call you a liar for directly misrepresenting the truth and calling Steve a liar when he factually was not lying?
I would like a reply to this comment fro Chris.
The thread speaks for itself. The fact is that Chris is a doctrinaire liberal who can’t deal with the fact that more people on this blog disagree with him than agree with him. He also brings very little with him to the table other than liberal talking points, an echo effect, and occasional name calling. Some of the other liberal folks here you can actually talk to, Spartan, Penn, heck, even V-girl, who has a few interests other than conservative-bashing. With Chris it’s all fight and bash all the time. He’s also called me an ass, a racist, and now a liar. I’m a big boy and I can handle being called names, but that behavior does not enhance his profile with me. If he feels besieged, then that’s his problem. He’s the one who’s come here day in and day out, butting heads with Zoltan, Tex, slick Willy, myself and others. It should come as no surprise that we defend ourselves. If he has a problem with that maybe he needs to go post on Democratic underground or some other exclusively liberal site. I’ve told him a couple of times in fits of anger to leave, but that’s not going anywhere and I know it. However, I will note that in my artist site days, occasionally the site owners would take it upon themselves to ping disruptive people off site and suggest it’s time to go. Chris is probably there.
Steve-O-in-NJ wrote, “That’s why blacks still claimed victimhood in the BLACK city of Baltimore with a BLACK mayor, a BLACK police commissioner, and a majority BLACK city council. That’s why we still hear grumbling after 8 years of a BLACK president with a BLACK attorney general, and that’s why BLACK leaders in New York wanted police-free zones, although they had their chance with a BLACK mayor.”
This entire section of the comment is trying to sarcastically point out that “victimhood” claims are false because there are blacks in prominent public places and that would not be possible if blacks were victims. This argument is not racist, it is false.
The argument is making a claim that just because there are black people that have risen to prominent public places that no black people are victimized. That is just plain false; not racist; just false.
Steve-O-in-NJ wrote, “It doesn’t matter if a city or state government looks like the government of Nigeria, the ghetto dwellers are never satisfied.”
Before the comma, the sentence is a direct continuation of the previous section of the paragraph. After the comma, the term ghetto dwellers must be taken in context of the whole paragraph, thus discussing the blacks in said ghetto, which doesn’t necessarily make it racist but it is another unethical blanket generalization. Additionally; based on the usage of the comma in the sentence, the statement “the ghetto dwellers are never satisfied” could also be taken as a independent clause therefore a blanket statement about everyone living in a ghetto which is clearly not racist but is another unethical generalization.
Steve-O-in-NJ,
Stop making blanket generalizations about huge groups of people, it can show some prejudice and it’s unethical.
Chris,
Being a racist is clearly unethical but making unethical statements that are related to blacks does not automatically imply that person is a racist.
Zoltar,
Thank you for your fair, rational, and neutral deconstruction of this conversation. It helps me feel less crazy, and it helps me understand where you (and Steve) are coming from better.
Sincerely,
Chris
Chris wrote, “You are making negative generalizations about “blacks” as a group based on the actions of a few; that is one of the most commonly accepted definitions of racism in our society.”
Thought for the day: Just because your initial reaction to something written/said is to label is racism does not mean that it’s actually racism.
Chris,
Can you tell me why this definition you presented of racism is not equally applied to Blacks when they make negative generalizations about whites, Latinos, Asians, or white police officers, etc, etc?
Honest question: If someone searched comments you’ve made on this website, is it possible that the search would show that you’ve had a double standard when applying this racism definition of yours?
Personally I think you need to reeducate yourself on the differences between prejudice, bigotry, racism and how to identify someone who is a bigot or a racist. Right now it looks like you are having some knee-jerk reactions to statements and claiming that something is racism when racism may not exist – that’s unethical.
Can you tell me why this definition you presented of racism is not equally applied to Blacks when they make negative generalizations about whites, Latinos, Asians, or white police officers, etc, etc?
No, because it absolutely should be.
If you took Steve’s rant and replaced every instance of the word “black” with “white,” “Latino,” or “Asian,” it would still be racist.
Honest question: If someone searched comments you’ve made on this website, is it possible that the search would show that you’ve had a double standard when applying this racism definition of yours?
No.
Chris said that this comment was racist:
“Because blacks don’t want equality, they don’t want achievement, they want permanent victim status, where no one can deny them or criticize them.”
I disagree with Chris; I do not consider that comment to be racist, I consider it to be a blanket generalization based on observation of many. It was unethical to make a generalization about the whole based on the many.
I disagree that a blanket generalization about a race of people is not racist; to me, that’s one of the most commonly accepted definitions of racism.
But we will probably not agree on this, so I am ready to move on.
I agree that a blanket generalization can be racist. When there is evidence of groupthink, it can be justifiable, but is still not accurate.
Nope, we won’t agree. For better or for worse, it IS time to move on. This discussion is tapped out and it’s impossible (and not recommended) to take it to the next level.
I think everyone in this conversation about racism needs to walk away from it. Some should eat a large helping of crow on their walk; you know who you are.
End this now.
Especially in connection to this post.
We’ve moved past racism. This is personal now.
Steve-O-in-NJ wrote, “We’ve moved past racism. This is personal now.”
So what?
My point still stands.
I find it odd that he would even attend an event hosted by her, given their disparate views on a few things. (he never could see his way clear on gay marriage though he was in favor of civil unions, while Kristin is a gay icon)
I’m confused by this. Do you think either Clinton and Chenowith are not used to attending events hosted by people they disagree with? Chenowith is famously a Christian and a Republican who supports gay rights; it seems to me she wouldn’t be able to do much of anything if she weren’t willing to hang out with people who disagree with her. And Clinton is well known for the many compromises he made while in office.
Bill O’Reilly, not Bill Clinton. Read the original post. If Kristin has half an ounce of brains she would stay WELL away from Bill Clinton.
I detest helmet styles on women — they are some weird holdover from the 60s and 70s. My mom spends a lot of time and money making her hair look like this every day. There is even a helmet joke about this in Steel Magnolias.
Helmet hair, huh. I’ve heard it referred to as “bicycle hair” from the result of wearing those caps, though. New information filed (under Least Likely to Ever Be Used).
I do love the placement of your posts lately, however. Last I noticed under the O’Reilly topic you were asked to defend your divorce statistics. But I don’t care; I really liked “Steel Magnolias.”
Oh God. The combination of race and women. I can’t stand it.
It is perfectly fine in politics and otherwise to criticize men for their looks, their dress, even their hair — instead of concentrating on their behavior. When it comes to women, however, this is taboo — completely. Women are all right; men never are. It permeates our culture — from advertising to sitcoms full of fat, stupid husbands and lovely, intelligent wives making for all sorts of fun.. Any criticism of (liberal) women is ipso facto sexist. Looks like Gloria Steinem won that war years ago.
Yes, the wig thing was typical O’Reilly nonsense. What if he had said “I think her wig was much more interesting than what she was saying?”
But by the way: never, never even mention that black women wear wigs or straighten their hair — even if they are so, so proud of being black. Why do they want “white” hair? Why did Michelle Obama straighten her hair, if she’s such a great example for black women? Her hair treatments probably cost a year’s rent for the average black woman, but she’s an “ideal?”
O’Reilly’s an asshole. No doubt about it. But being fired for this one particular gaffe out of literally thousands? It’s only because it was Maxine Waters’ hair, and she’s black.
But by the way: never, never even mention that black women wear wigs or straighten their hair — even if they are so, so proud of being black. Why do they want “white” hair? Why did Michelle Obama straighten her hair, if she’s such a great example for black women? Her hair treatments probably cost a year’s rent for the average black woman, but she’s an “ideal?”
Because black girls tend to get kicked out of school for wearing their natural hair? Because black women get fired, or not hired in the first place for wearing natural black hairstyles? Because afros, twists, braids, and dreadlocks, even in this day and age are deemed unprofessional, unkempt, radical, and/or dirty by society at large? As far as questions go, that one is not particularly hard to answer.
So a good skill set does not overcome natural African-American hair? Show me the stats. Black and proud means everything BUT hair, does it? If you can find me one real article that shows that “black hair means no hire” I may rethink this. On the other hand, I don’t think the First Lady of the United States needs to worry about this: that’s a completely different rationale.
So a good skill set does not overcome natural African-American hair? Show me the stats. Black and proud means everything BUT hair, does it? If you can find me one real article that shows that “black hair means no hire” I may rethink this. On the other hand, I don’t think the First Lady of the United States needs to worry about this: that’s a completely different rationale.
You mean like this?: http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2017/02/06/512943035/new-evidence-shows-theres-still-bias-against-black-natural-hair
According to the study, “a majority of people, regardless of race and gender, hold some bias towards women of color based on their hair.” But the results also indicate that this bias is learned behavior, and can be unlearned.
Hair should not be something that one has to “overcome.” But it seems that most black women are well aware that there is still a stigma surrounding natural black hairstyles, and react accordingly.
The army was recently dinged for basically forbidding natural black hairstyles, telling women that they should cover it up with a wig, and had to scramble to adjust the rules after the outcry. Yet how many people did those regulations have to go through initially?
As far as Michelle Obama goes, who can forget that infamous New Yorker cover that depicted Michelle as a crazy radical….with a huge Afro? Natural African-American hair has some very strong, undeniable connotations in this society.
Well by all means let’s use NPR as our primary source on this. Oh please.
The study can be found in other publications, if you care to look, though I suspect you won’t.
Here are some more examples of people not being hired, or being fired, due to natural black hairstyles: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601801.html
Anecdotal. There are cannibals now and then too. I know there are outlier cases of this, but it is hardly widespread.
That’s why I included the study, which showed that the perception is far from isolated, but widespread.
Michelle Obama had eight years of a bully pulpit to encourage natural black hair for women. (Jack Kennedy hated hats, e.g., didn’t wear them, and changed men’s fashion and attitudes toward hats forever.)
If Michelle Obama wanted to do one single thing to change attitudes about black women and their love/hate relationship to hair — especially since you say this is a major employment impediment for black women everywhere — she could have worn a conservative black hairstyle — being the First Lady and in the public eye all the time, you see. But no, she — our first black First Lady — opted for “white” hair instead. Blame her. This was a chance to really change attitudes and she didn’t take it. And if this is as big a problem as you say it is, then shame on her. She should have seen it, been informed about it, and helped do something about it. End of topic.l
1. Michelle Obama spent eight years being attacked for being “angry” and anti-white.” A natural black hairstyle would not have helped.
2. There is really no such thing as a “conservative” natural black hairstyle. I can imagine the uproar when Michelle debuted her “sistalocks” or a TWA Her children sported cornrows when they were little, as per custom with llittle black girls, and they were attacked in conservative circles for that.
3; Michelle Obama should be able to wear her hair however the hell she wants, as for her preference without having to represent all black women everywhere. The fact that you feel she should change her hair as a political statement to suit your preferences, akin to a hat, is part of the problem, and why black women’s hair is still a touchy subject to this day.
I don’t usually go all the way with Elizabeth the Second, but she’s dinged it this time. I thought the same thing every time I saw a picture of the First Lady and wondered why she chose NOT to be a role model in one of the most important ways she could have. I kept waiting for her to change it — just like women do — but it stayed the same, not only white but, yes, conservative white. She didn’t have to do anything extreme, just “represent” sometimes to show everyone she was actually proud of her heritage instead of falsifying it.
Michelle Obama can have any hair she wants — as long as it looks professional. My mom (a white woman) spends a lot of time and money cutting, dying, perming, and setting her hair to look exactly like Maxine Waters’ hair. It takes her over an hour a day to achieve this look. I refuse to curl my poker straight hair because it is a waste of my precious time — and I dislike helmet head anyway. One of my best friends (who is white) has the kinkiest hair on the planet and spends a crazy amount of time and money to get her hair as straight as mine every day. My black friends sport a variety of styles but ALL of them spend a lot more time and money on their hair than me — some hate doing it, some like it. If it makes women feel attractive to style their hair a certain way, then that is their own business. If they want to sport a natural look, then that is their own business too. I am lucky because my natural look (it only needs a quick comb out of the shower, no product) is the “accepted” look for professional women. I don’t know what I would do if I had kinky hair, but I suspect my laziness would take over and I would have kinky hair in the office. But again, I’m white, so different rules apply to me — or at least they did early in my career.
On the other hand, I don’t think the First Lady of the United States needs to worry about this: that’s a completely different rationale.
Elizabeth, as deery already pointed out, this is breathtakingly naive. The First Lady was criticized every time she did or said anything that approached what white conservatives see as “black behavior;” her hairstyle absolutely would have been judged. Have you seriously forgotten that prominent conservatives spent eight years calling Michelle Obama fat, which was simply factually untrue?
And while it would have been nice for her to emulate an authentic black hairstyle, she is under absolutely no obligation to do so, and your insistence that she is is incredibly racist.
See my other replies. This is getting completely ridiculous. And BTW, Michelle Obama was loved, and rarely criticized. You are the naive one if you think she was battling the press and public opinion all the time. My reply (to someone) of five minutes ago ends this stupid conversation.
Spartan and deery said:
“Michelle Obama can have any hair she wants …”
“Michelle Obama should be able to wear her hair however the hell she wants…”
How does this square with white girls being told they cannot were a ‘cultural minority’ hair style? Cultural appropriation?
deery said “ Because afros, twists, braids, and dreadlocks, even in this day and age are deemed unprofessional, unkempt, radical, and/or dirty by society at large?”
Citation? Is this true on the East Coast? Because it is not true in Central and South Texas. I will admit that in the Texas climate, those who do not wash their hair daily will be known, but that applies across the spectrum of races.
I may be provincial on this, because I did not know there was such a thing as ‘white’ or ‘black’ hair, given the interchange in styles where I grew up and live. I would as likely see a white girl with corn rows, a Latina with an afro, or a black girl with long straight (sometimes orange or blond) hair.
Maybe it comes from living in areas where the ‘races’ mix as a matter of course, and have for many decades.
Spartan and deery said:
“Michelle Obama can have any hair she wants …”
“Michelle Obama should be able to wear her hair however the hell she wants…”
How does this square with white girls being told they cannot were a ‘cultural minority’ hair style? Cultural appropriation?
People can wear their hair however they want. Cultural appropriation comes in when the history and culture of those people who originally wear the style is erased, and it becomes something “new, innovative, and daring.” For example, when Bantu knots become “mini-buns.” People also bristle when if they wear the traditional style, it’s “ghetto” or “unprofessional,”, yet on the head of someone in the majority culture, it’s beautiful and “eclectic.”
deery said “ Because afros, twists, braids, and dreadlocks, even in this day and age are deemed unprofessional, unkempt, radical, and/or dirty by society at large?”
Citation? Is this true on the East Coast? Because it is not true in Central and South Texas. I will admit that in the Texas climate, those who do not wash their hair daily will be known, but that applies across the spectrum of races.
Citation upthread. But beyond the study, we have seen other fairly recent examples, where Afros have been forbidden in school, girls getting kicked out for wearing natural hairstyles, and people fired for having dreadlocks.
And judging by your comments, I do think you are naïve, or ignorant when it comes to the subject of black hair, and it’s upkeep. A short browse online, or any black women friends that you know well enough to ask might give you some pointers. But no, it does not apply across the spectrum of races.
I just find it interesting that this subthread (and the thread in general actually) started with the assertion that black women are far too touchy on the subject of their hair, yet some of the very same people also want castigate black women for not wearing their hair in certain approved ways for “the good of the race.” I think one can see, even just reading along, that black hair (especially black women’s hair) is politicized in a way that white people’s hair simply is not. Should Melania Trump be forced to wear her hair a certain way to be a role model and send a message to other white women? Would anyone ever even begin to suggest this?
How does this square with white girls being told they cannot were a ‘cultural minority’ hair style? Cultural appropriation?
It doesn’t, because the notion that girls wearing their hair in a certain style is “cultural appropriation” is bullshit, and a misuse of the term. I am considered a “social justice warrior,” but the ones who say white people can’t have dreadlocks are being ridiculous.
Women and men can wear their hair any damn way they want.
But IF it is true that black women with “natural” styles have less chance of success in the job market, and IF the information is correct and available beyond NPR, and IF the first lady wanted to use her bully pulpit on a issue that is REAL and that she thought was proven and important — perhaps, like me, she didn’t see enough evidence to make it as big a deal as NPR did — but IF she did, she had an opportunity as a role model to help change attitudes by her hair style. That’s all I’ve been saying.
I don’t really don’t want to give this issue one more minute. Every First Lady has had her “projects” based on her public influence — whether it’s planting tulips, refurbishing the White House, or “just say no,” I never said that Michelle Obama should have made hair her “project.” I only said that if this issue is a real, live, economic issue for black women generally, she could have done something about it by power of her position. This entire discussion has been based on data that has not been proved elsewhere to my satisfaction, so really, it’s stupid on its face. And I didn’t bring it up, by the way, you did.
I must note that this is an odd argument—Michelle can wear her hair anyway she wants-–for those justly complaining about some of Trump’s conduct. Trump can tweet any way HE wants. That doesn’t mean its the most ethical course.
I must note that this is an odd argument—Michelle can wear her hair anyway she wants-–for those justly complaining about some of Trump’s conduct. Trump can tweet any way HE wants. That doesn’t mean its the most ethical course.
It’s only odd if you think the First Lady is the equivalent to the President, though, as you’ve noted several times in your defenses of Melania Trump, it is not.
And Trump’s tweets are also marked for being unethical, bordering on illegal, for many reasons, some of which have to do with the keeping of government records, and using the bully pulpit of the Presidency to target private citizens and companies.
I don’t think a black woman wearing a common hairstyle can really be shown to be acting unethically, unless you are putting a greater obligation on her to act in a way you would not expect of others, based on her race.
Which, again, is perhaps why black women tend to be touchy about their hair, and part of the reason why there was such a fuss in the first place. Black hair tends to be very political, which people accept implicitly, but also want to act surprised when people make the connection explicitly. Cognitive dissonance working overtime.
Obviously not the equivalent; obviously a high visibility role model with unusual power to mold attitudes and conduct, if she chooses. Nobody says its unethical for her to wear her hair however she wants. It’s a lost opportunity. It would be an ethical act if she did as Elizabeth suggests. Ethical conduct isn’t binary.
Trump’s unethical tweets are unethical (none have been illegal). His routine tweets are unseemly, and not most responsible, ethical choice, but not objectively unethical.
Obviously not the equivalent; obviously a high visibility role model with unusual power to mold attitudes and conduct, if she chooses. Nobody says its unethical for her to wear her hair however she wants. It’s a lost opportunity. It would be an ethical act if she did as Elizabeth suggests. Ethical conduct isn’t binary.
I think burdening her with extra expectations of everyday conduct because of her race is probably not the correct course. And also blithely offering recommendations about what she should do with her hair, while also being ignorant of exactly what that would probably involve is a bit ludicrous.
Suffice to say, even if she felt the inclination, and wanted to spend the large amounts of time and effort involved, Michelle Obama was not going to wake up one morning and decide to become natural. To get to that point from hair that has been chemically-treated, she would have had to shave her head, and start fresh. Or…wear a wig or weave, and wait a few years for it to grow out before then chopping it off. I think that is a bit too much to ask for anyone, and I see no real reason she would have an ethical obligation to do so because of her race.
Trump’s unethical tweets are unethical (none have been illegal). His routine tweets are unseemly, and not most responsible, ethical choice, but not objectively unethical.
There have been some mutterings about Trump’s tweets from a preservation of government records perspective ( he has a tendency to delete tweets.) And if it can be shown that he is personally profiting off his tweets by going after companies that are rivals to companies that he has a monetary interest in?
But yes, his routine tweets are mostly dumb and embarrassing. But I would think that would be unethical in a President, no matter what.
Deery, the findings were the result of an implicit bias test (IAT). Aside from the lack of consensus on the validity of these types of tests, this study was sponsored by a company that deals in hair products marketed to African Americans and conducted by the Perception Institute, an organization which I suspect may have an interest finding bias.
I took it twice. I either have no preference among African American hairstyles or a slight preference for straight hair. Hmmm, news to me. It’s too bad we can’t count on NPR to address these issues. Perhaps you can come up with a study that shows ACTUAL bias?
Deery, the findings were the result of an implicit bias test (IAT). Aside from the lack of consensus on the validity of these types of tests, this study was sponsored by a company that deals in hair products marketed to African Americans and conducted by the Perception Institute, an organization which I suspect may have an interest finding bias.
I took it twice. I either have no preference among African American hairstyles or a slight preference for straight hair. Hmmm, news to me. It’s too bad we can’t count on NPR to address these issues. Perhaps you can come up with a study that shows ACTUAL bias?
Actually, it is no surprise that an African-American hair company would fund the study. Considering it seems to be the first of its kind, it seems that society at large has little interest in any scientific studies of the subject. And I’m actually surprised at the findings. A natural hair company would probably want to find that such hairstyles are acceptable, no? This way more women would wear their hair natural, and buy more of their product.
Though I don’t think we need much of a study to veify what is happening in front of our eyes. The U.S. Army banned Afros, two-strand twists, cornrows, and dreadlocks. Girls get kicked out of school for having Afros or Afro puffs. People are fired for having dreadlocks and cornrows. When did you ever hear of someone being fired for having straight hair? Hair that grows down, instead of up? For having feathered hair? I’ll wait.
But if you know of any studies that are contrary to the study provided, I would love to see it.
No such study is reliable, and nobody should cite them.
Please, tell me about that time machine you have! This is so exciting!
It all started with the “black is beautiful” movement in the 1960s (before I was born). Apparently “black is beautiful” means everything but not “black hair is beautiful.” I have no problem with anyone –regardless of race or age — changing their hair color, straightening their hair, curling their hair, etc., etc. But when black women leaders insist on having straightened “white” hair, it sends a negative sub-message to black women. For five years I worked for a black-oriented public policy research organization, and women like Michelle Obama (though before her time) would always have been termed “light-brights.” Be black but also as white as possible. It was the ultimate insult at this black, Ph.D.-infested organization.
It all started with the “black is beautiful” movement in the 1960s (before I was born). Apparently “black is beautiful” means everything but not “black hair is beautiful.” I have no problem with anyone –regardless of race or age — changing their hair color, straightening their hair, curling their hair, etc., etc.
Except, apparently black women, who should be restricted from the full freedom to do whatever the hell they want to their hair, “for the good of the race.”
But when black women leaders insist on having straightened “white” hair, it sends a negative sub-message to black women.
I think black women already get the negative sub-message from society at large. Black women leaders can and should wear their hair however they want. However, historically, and even up to present day, natural black hair is deemed to be the radical choice. Many choose not to have teir hair be the subject of conversation.
And on another note, going the natural route requires an intensive amount of upkeep and time “babying” the hair, depending on the particular texture. For some women, they choose to don a wig or weave and spend their time and efforts elsewhere, on more important matters.
Third note, straight hair is not a “white” provenance. Many Asians, Latinos, and of course, black women, have naturally straight hair.
Michelle Obama (though before her time) would always have been termed “light-brights.”
Michelle Obama would have never been classified as a “light-bright”. Not in a million years.
I think the political left should spend some time where they actually don’t use any of their usual double standards for anything; even if it was just for a brief moment, what a breath of fresh air it would be.
Jack,
Thanks for fixing that.
It’s my job! At least until WordPress adds an edit function for commenters…
Hair is a bad place to go for a number of reasons. Many AA men and women routinely have their hair touched, pulled, inquired about or made fun of. This is because it’s different, and these activities contribute to sustaining the concept of AA’s as “others” and not worthy. It’s the reason why so many black folks found O’Reilly’s comments so offensive. With that being said, your comments in relation to Donald Trump are interesting. I personally have never thought to criticize his hair because of the multitude of other avenues available. But I do recall him mocking himself, and allowing a late night host to vigorously rub his head on national TV to the delight of the crowd. While the attacks on his appearance are admittedly unfair, he has at least tacitly given his approval. Maxine Waters has done no such thing, and shouldn’t be subjected to such attacks. O’Reilly’s apology will likely have to suffice. I choose not to go their with Trump based on a personal sensitivity to my own. ( and I’m always well quaffed!) I wish those that disagree with Maxine would find another line of attack. You seem to be of a similar mind. And as an aside, Frans de Waal is a longtime friend, and simply one of the best people I know. It’s great to see “Chimpanzee Politics” mentioned here…
Very helpful.
On the consent issue—Trump began joking about the hair stuff after it had been going on for a while. I’m pretty sure he didn’t pre-approve the first hair joke, and “consenting” to some hair barbs doesn’t waive the right to find others—like about half those on the Post’s list— over the line. Also consent to ad hominem attacks doesn’t make them any less wrong: It’s Rationalization # 42. The Hillary Inoculation, or “If he/she doesn’t care, why should anyone else?” If Samuel L. Jackson says that being called a racial slur doesn’t bother him, or makes jokes aboutit, does that mean that it’s OK to call him a racial slur?
Chimpmania!
Talk about a tempest in a teapot. Sheesh. Bill O’Reilly is a blowhard, and has the analytical acumen of a small soapdish. Racist? Probably not. Yet, CNN’s Don Lemons and his enlightened panel spent the entire time last night conflating the O’Reilly-Watters kerfuffle and Sean Spicer’s take down of April Ryann for asking too many ridiculous questions. Here is some of the video:
https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-mozilla-002&hsimp=yhs-002&hspart=mozilla&p=don+lemons+oreilly+hair#id=1&vid=931ef0d9cd8f7ec75601870a1c1e1a78&action=click
It was delicious. The self-satisfied outrage of the Angela Rye (“You’re boy is a racist and needs to be fired”) and Symone Sanders was almost too good to watch. Now, imagine this: the Affordable Care Act is going to implode, the national debt is spiraling out of control, our immigration policy is either broken or so fundamentally flawed that it would allow the deportation of undocumented people, and student loan debt is about to cripple the economy. Yet, we are spending time discussing whether Bill O’Reilly should be fired because he mocked Maxine Watters’ hair? I am not holding out much hope for the future of the nation.
jvb
But is it more significant than leggings on airplanes?
An Aside: Why do we as a society allow blatant slander and libel when it comes to public figures but we hold individuals legally responsible for the exact same kind of behavior when it’s directed at “private” citizens?
The media is certainly granted immunity from slander and libel as long as its target is a politician and politicians seem to be granted the same immunity when talking about other politicians.
When are we going to wise up that these kinds of enabling double standards is part of the reasons that politics is so damned screwed up these days?
Yes I know we have a Constitution; but, how did things get so screwed up?
Discuss….
Just because they can engage in slander and libel doesn’t mean its ethical, fair or right. Harry Reid slandered Mitt Romney. Donald Trump slandered Obama. I heard a Dem. Governor say outright that Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election. These are all slanderous, but we have to count on the news media and the public to sort it out. Politicians suing each other would be disastrous.
Jack wrote, “but we have to count on the news media and the public to sort it out.”
But the news media is part of the problem.
Jack wrote, “Politicians suing each other would be disastrous.”
Okay; but, what about politicians suing the media? Maybe if a couple of politicians sued the pants off of someone in the media, and actually won the suit, the problem would begin to subside a little.
I’m just so tired of all the bull shit.
They can sue the media, but they have to prove actual malice, not merely recklessness.
Jack Marshall said, “They can sue the media, but they have to prove actual malice, not merely recklessness.”
That shouldn’t be very hard, the media has really been pushing their luck these days.
It’s incredibly hard. (Movie quote: which?)
I don’t have the foggiest idea.
It’s incredibly hard. (Movie quote: which?)
Must be “Frozen.”
No! Good guess.
It’s “Moneyball.”
Aaaa… A movie about baseball, no wonder I haven’t seen it. 😉
It’s a really good movie. Here is your baseball catch-up list. See these, and you’ll be ready to see a game from new eyes.
The Stratton Story
Pride of the Yankees
Fear Strikes Out
42
The Bingo Long Traveling All-Stars & Motor Kings
Bull Durham
Major League
Field of Dreams
The Natural
When it comes to things related to professional sports I generally choose to steer clear and if I miss a few good movies as a result, I’m okay with that. The whole professional sports experience, regardless of the sport, and related movies just don’t float my boat.
Sad. You don’t know what you’re missing. Baseball has taught me even more about ethics and human nature than theater has.
Let me take you to a game.
Jack Marshall wrote, “Let me take you to a game.”
Thanks for the invite, but I’ve been there done that. I’ve actually been to a professional games football (x2), baseball (x2), basketball (1), and hockey (1) game. Heck the son of a friend of mine currently plays in the NFL, I’ve known this “youngster” almost his entire life and even that hasn’t made a difference. I played soccer and a little football & basketball in High School, I’ve never really been interested in baseball. When you know up front that it’s really just not for you, why bother wasting time and money on it?
I’d rather clean out the garage or basement. 😉
You haven’t been to a game with ME.
“Why in the world can’t you “go after a woman” when the woman is an elected official who says ridiculous things as routinely as clockwork?”
I think what she was trying to say was that “you can’t go after how a woman looks”.But regardless… As your Trump hairdoo example, Or Time’s “Elephant in The Room”, or the trillions of times we’ve heard the term “tiny hands”, these people have no trouble attacking men on the way they look, only the women need protection… because they’re weak, fragile, insecure, or something.
She may well have meant that, but if you are in the communications biz, and leave off the parts of sentences that explain what you mean, you deserve to be criticized for what you in fact SAID. “I didn’t mean “you can’t go after a woman,” that’s just what I said. I meant “you can’t go after a woman with a machete” or “you can’t go after a woman, you should always cut in front of her” or “you can’t go after a woman unless she’s asked you to.”
If I want to play Mad Libs, I’ll say so.
I’m pretty sure that is not James Brown, but Jordan Peele, of Key & Peele fame in the picture, wearing a wig.
Here is a good one…
Got it. So what?
Alternative replies:
1. You’re right. Thanks. I fixed it.
2. Would it have been racist of O’Reilly had said “A Jordan Peele James Brown wig”?
3. He didn’t say she looked like James Brown, and I didn’t say the photo was of James Brown. The wig Peele was wearing was a Brown wig (since he wore it to look like Brown), and the Brown wig pictured look like The Congresswoman’s wig….hence “he had a point.”
“What’s the standard being advocated here? Calling a white President”s comb-over anything from a dead animal to decomposing vegetables is perfectly acceptable political discourse, but comparing a black House member’s wig to the hair of a dead rock icon is too horrible to tolerate?”
Yes. Of course. Recall Jesse Jackson calling New York City “Hymietown” and “wanting to cut Obama’s nuts off” with impunity.
What struck me more about that photo was not the hair but that fact she looks like Nipsy Ruseell playing the Tin Man in The Wiz.
Ah,Nipsy Russell! The token TV game show African American all through the sixties!
She just has old lady hair — this is not a black or white thing.
So did James Brown.
True!
ouch!
While urbanregor brings up important points about why the issue of black hair is a sensitive one, I wouldn’t say this comment was “racist,” and O’Reilly shouldn’t be fired for it. He has said actually racist things in the past; this isn’t one.
We have 100% congruence on this issue!!!