GOP Congressman shouts “Go Back to Puerto Rico”

[rk9152]

---

@ManicProgressive wrote:

---

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

---

@ManicProgressive wrote:
Context always matters. All of it. That’s why a black person can use the n-word and I can’t.

---

Sure you can when they use the h-word.

---

You can defend racism all you want. It will never be a morally valid choice.

---

What is racist about bugging Dems about their Puerto Rican all expenses paid vacation in the middle of the partial government closing??

[ManicProgressive]

---

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

---

@ManicProgressive wrote:
Context always matters. All of it. That’s why a black person can use the n-word and I can’t.

---

Sure you can when they use the h-word.

---

You can defend racism all you want. It will never be a morally valid choice.

[rk9152]

---

@Panjandrum wrote:

rk9152:  Some just have to find racism, sexism, etc. in others when it does not exist. It seems they are not able to deal with issues so have to project they hatred they feel on others.

And some just can't find racism with both hands and a flashlight even when it's blatantly obvious.

---

If it were findable with both hands and a flashlight and truly blatantly obvious, you'd think someone would be able say what was racist in what was said.

But so far, nothing but the usual insults by the kudo swappers.

[NOTHAPPENING]

---

@ManicProgressive wrote:
Context always matters. All of it. That’s why a black person can use the n-word and I can’t.

---

Sure you can when they use the h-word.

[Centristsin2010]

---

@ManicProgressive wrote:

This is what racism is. It doesn’t have to be someone painting swastikas or hanging nooses or wearing a hood.  

This interaction is racism.

It’s uncomfortable for whites who choose to ignore racism because they very often make comments like this.  Just because you may not mean it to be racist, doesn’t mean it’s not.

There’s intent and impact.   Two people involved. The communicator and the one communicated to. They both matter.

It’s so easy for white people to put themselves in the white person’s shoes and say “oh of course that’s not racism.” But we often fail to put ourselves in the recipient’s shoes. A Latino man who has had those same words said to him many times in a racist context. What impact would it have other than a racist one?

Why try to give benefit of the doubt to the white guy about his intent and not to the Latino guy about his impact? 

Why keep telling people of color that they are mistakenly taking  something as racist instead of telling white people that they are mistakenly saying something that is racist?

Why always put the burden on the person of color?  <——That’s racism.

---

VERY well said, Manic!!!  Worthy of multiple kudo's if I could.  Instead?  A standing O....

[Centristsin2010]

---

@GailL1 wrote:

Whoops, forgot to put in who I was responding to -

@Centristsin2010

How did you come to the conclusion that Smith's comments were racist after reading what you just posted?  Unlike some, I don't believe everything I hear from a Communications Director....just as I believe very little from  Sarah Sanders.  I think had it been as the CD described, Smith would have said so and apologized immediately.

Sometimes people just misunderstand the spoken word - perhaps from their own experiences, recent or in the past.  And many more don't have any common sense to speak clearly and appropriately.  Regardless of the mean, Smith's comment was stupi and ignorant. 

"Go back to Puerto Rico" in this instance refers to a place and recent time - Not to ones ethniticity, race or heritage.  So you claim, with firsthand knowledge....

Yes, words have consequences but interpretations also bares acknowledging.

Personally, it irks me that the MSM not only reported the incident and the clarification - which they should - They did.  but why after the clarification did they throw back in any link to the Rep King unfortunate comment - The context....it matters.  Isn't that what you claimed?  Does it not count now???.....especially to the clarification and the understanding which both men seem to have worked through.  It's clear why many Americans believe racism is a Conservative trait.  Can you see why? Or is it all a "misunderstanding"?

[rk9152]

---

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

---

@rk9152 wrote:

---

@Tom5678 wrote:
what an incredibly bigoted remark, not only that, but just totally insensitive as well. Didn't surprise me all that much it came from Scalise. I think he has gotten into trouble before with some of his shall we say, views. Not acceptable for someone from Congress IMO.

---

Some just have to find racism, sexism, etc. in others when it does not exist. And some aren't capable to see it when it clearly does exist. Why do some have a compulsive need to attack those who point out racism?  Those who aren't blind know the answer....  

---

No attack, simply a different interpretation of the guy's words - intelligent people would understand that.

Now, back to the comment - many Dems had just gotten back from a free vacation in Puerto Rico. He was mocking them.

[ManicProgressive]

Context always matters. All of it. That’s why a black person can use the n-word and I can’t.

[GailL1]

@ManicProgressive

You seem to be saying that it matters WHO said it rather than WHAT was said -

Am I interpreting your thoughts correctly?

So is the matter of racism a combination of both - the who and the what?  Seems so -

If the (same) remarks had been said by a Latino GOP Rep - would the comment be interpreted as racist?

What if what was said was changed in "A"word to " Travel back to Puerto Rico"

?  "Travel back to . . . . " / "Go back to . . . . " ?

What if in a different setting - say a sports event - where a white fan of whatever country origin, yelled at a black player - Go back to (whatever) city as a communication of fan rivalry.

So then I guess it is not only WHAT was said, to WHOM it was said to, but also in what setting.  

Latino or Hispanic is not a race.  In fact, in previous Census, maybe still, I don't know - the census ask about being a black or white Hispanic since there are both.  

I am saying this only because if both people are white, regardless of their origin, how could one surmise that the comment might be racist?  A misunderstanding, a bad choice of words, being impolite/rude in the setting, maybe - 

Communication between two people is difficult because each is saying and hearing the communication based on their own experiences - Always, no matter who the two people might be or what is said - that is just communicating. Each party needs to always get and give clarity. To me, this is what these two men did - good for them.

[ManicProgressive]

This is what racism is. It doesn’t have to be someone painting swastikas or hanging nooses or wearing a hood.  

This interaction is racism.

It’s uncomfortable for whites who choose to ignore racism because they very often make comments like this.  Just because you may not mean it to be racist, doesn’t mean it’s not.

There’s intent and impact.   Two people involved. The communicator and the one communicated to. They both matter.

It’s so easy for white people to put themselves in the white person’s shoes and say “oh of course that’s not racism.” But we often fail to put ourselves in the recipient’s shoes. A Latino man who has had those same words said to him many times in a racist context. What impact would it have other than a racist one?

Why try to give benefit of the doubt to the white guy about his intent and not to the Latino guy about his impact? 

Why keep telling people of color that they are mistakenly taking  something as racist instead of telling white people that they are mistakenly saying something that is racist?

Why always put the burden on the person of color?  <——That’s racism.