Stupid, dirty girl
CNN
Almost weird enough for the oddball news, we have Riordan making a tease, and a whole bunch of civil rights groups almost going off. Until they found out the little teased girl was white.
I will say that Riordan was not acting especially bright here. Words like stupid are very loaded and provoke an immediate hostile reaction, even when used in jest.
However I find this part just as ironically stupid.
So Mr. Dymally, apparently Riordan would have done that to a white girl.
Another take on it..
Sacramento Bee
Nick
Almost weird enough for the oddball news, we have Riordan making a tease, and a whole bunch of civil rights groups almost going off. Until they found out the little teased girl was white.
Quote:
The conversation, videotaped by KEYT-TV, took place July 1. The girl, 6-year-old Isis D'Luciano, asked Riordan if he knew her name meant "Egyptian goddess."
Riordan replied, "It means stupid dirty girl."
After nervous laughter in the room, the girl again told Riordan the meaning of her name.
"Hey, that's nifty," he said.
A day later, Riordan issued a statement that said he "teased" the girl. "I immediately apologized to her, and I want to do so again for the misunderstanding," Riordan said.
The conversation, videotaped by KEYT-TV, took place July 1. The girl, 6-year-old Isis D'Luciano, asked Riordan if he knew her name meant "Egyptian goddess."
Riordan replied, "It means stupid dirty girl."
After nervous laughter in the room, the girl again told Riordan the meaning of her name.
"Hey, that's nifty," he said.
A day later, Riordan issued a statement that said he "teased" the girl. "I immediately apologized to her, and I want to do so again for the misunderstanding," Riordan said.
I will say that Riordan was not acting especially bright here. Words like stupid are very loaded and provoke an immediate hostile reaction, even when used in jest.
However I find this part just as ironically stupid.
Quote:
Democratic state Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally, who had scheduled a protest by civil rights organizations, canceled the demonstration after an apparent mix-up over the girl's racial background.
Dymally was quoted in the San Jose Mercury News Thursday saying the child was "a little African-American girl. Would he (Riordan) have done that to a white girl?"
The girl is white, with blonde hair.
Democratic state Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally, who had scheduled a protest by civil rights organizations, canceled the demonstration after an apparent mix-up over the girl's racial background.
Dymally was quoted in the San Jose Mercury News Thursday saying the child was "a little African-American girl. Would he (Riordan) have done that to a white girl?"
The girl is white, with blonde hair.
So Mr. Dymally, apparently Riordan would have done that to a white girl.
Another take on it..
Sacramento Bee
Nick
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
CNN
Almost weird enough for the oddball news, we have Riordan making a tease, and a whole bunch of civil rights groups almost going off. Until they found out the little teased girl was white.
I will say that Riordan was not acting especially bright here. Words like stupid are very loaded and provoke an immediate hostile reaction, even when used in jest.
However I find this part just as ironically stupid.
Nick
What the hell was Riordan thinking? What a prime example of thoughtlessness and spite.
And, equally annoyingly, why the hell are incompetent racists being employed by civil rights groups? If there's ever an example of "led-by-the-nose lefties" shooting themselves in the foot, or displaying rank duplicity, or both....this is it.
Idiots.
Originally posted by sammi jo
What the hell was Riordan thinking? What a prime example of thoughtlessness and spite.
And, equally annoyingly, why the hell are incompetent racists being employed by civil rights groups? If there's ever an example of "led-by-the-nose lefties" shooting themselves in the foot, or displaying rank duplicity, or both....this is it.
Idiots.
Word.
Originally posted by sammi jo
What the hell was Riordan thinking? What a prime example of thoughtlessness and spite.
And, equally annoyingly, why the hell are incompetent racists being employed by civil rights groups? If there's ever an example of "led-by-the-nose lefties" shooting themselves in the foot, or displaying rank duplicity, or both....this is it.
Idiots.
Well it was mostly Mr. Dymally who was horribly inconsistant and racist. There were some civil rights groups who were willing to go forward with the protest.
I will give credit where due.
Nick
Dymally was quoted in the San Jose Mercury News Thursday saying the child was "a little African-American girl. Would he (Riordan) have done that to a white girl?"
The girl is white, with blonde hair.
Dymally did not return telephone calls. His office issued a statement Wednesday calling Riordan's remarks to the girl "outrageous and irresponsible," then issued another statement Thursday saying, "To err is human; to forgive is divine."
"Race is not a factor in this issue," Dymally said in Thursday's statement, adding that Riordan had apologized a second time. "It is time for us to move on."
Right, it is outrageous that Dymally instantly, blindly and unquestioningly presumed that 1. Riordan was making a racist comment (because he is white) and 2. equating "dirty" (and "stupid"?) with "a little African-American girl".
To top it off Dymally wants people to forget his truly offensive faux pas with a trivializing "To err is human; to forgive is divine." yet he cannot do the same for Riordan.
I love it. The bile-colored glasses of victimization makes it look like all comments are directed towards your victim group.
Its people like Dymally that gives the opponents of fair treatment their ammunition and actions like this is highly counterproductive.
One question I have is whether Riordan would have said the same thing if the student was a 6-year old boy instead. I must be whipping out the "gender card" now, huh?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Again, I stand by my previous post-- you've merely repeated claims I dealt with initially. But one new point you did bring up-- about not knowing enough to consider race as a factor-- I think it's bogus. Lots of people here want to pretend that race, gender, sexuality, and many other factors don't have much of an influence on our identity in the world-- or on people's actions. Newsflash: it does, they do, it happens. Dymally asked that question-- right or wrong-- and now right-wingers and unsympathetic liberals like yourself fault him.
One question I have is whether Riordan would have said the same thing if the student was a 6-year old boy instead. I must be whipping out the "gender card" now, huh?
The problem with your posts defence of Dymally is that if he didnt even know if the girl was black or not he had absolutely no basis to say it was racists. I can not think of any senario where he would know enough about the case to call him a racist and not know she was white, unless he was deliberatly lied to. If you can I invite you to share it.
You can not say telling a black girls name means dirty little girl is racist. You have to add some evidence to that. The fact alone that he said it to a white girl proves that point. Something you call black and white girls alike cannot be racist in itself iwhen said to a black girl.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
We don't know whether Dymally "instantly, blindly, and unquestioningly presumed" anything. It was a "mix-up" after all. He might have just received the wrong information. I think most of you are jumping to conclusions when you don't know the facts-- again, something we can't necessarily say about Dymally. He's right to ultimately say that race was not a factor.
Dymally nevertheless is to blame, because he himself scheduled a protest by civil rights organizations (and he cancelled it) based on information he himself made no effort to verify (apparently!).
He at the very least "instantly, blindly, and unquestioningly presumed" the information he was given was correct even if his underlings were the ones that made the mistake. or is he the kind of leader that doesn't take responsibility for mistakes of his staff/supporters/sources? Yeah...he probably is that kind of "leader".
But we were talking about Dymally, not Bush, I digress...
Originally posted by Anders
The problem with your posts defence of Dymally is that if he didnt even know if the girl was black or not he had absolutely no basis to say it was racists. I can not think of any senario where he would know enough about the case to call him a racist and not know she was white, unless he was deliberatly lied to. If you can I invite you to share it.
You can not say telling a black girls name means dirty little girl is racist. You have to add some evidence to that. The fact alone that he said it to a white girl proves that point. Something you call black and white girls alike cannot be racist in itself iwhen said to a black girl.
I don't see the word "racist" mentioned once in any of Dymally's public statements about the affair. I see exactly what I've been saying all along: he considered race as a factor (based either on mistaken information about the girl's identity or wrongheaded assumptions about her identity).
Are you saying he had no basis to question whether race *was* a factor, which is exactly what he did? "Dymally was quoted in the San Jose Mercury News Thursday saying the child was "a little African-American girl. Would he (Riordan) have done that to a white girl?"
As far as getting race-centered civil rights groups involved in the affair-- I think that was the apt thing to do at the time.
Originally posted by johnq
Dymally nevertheless is to blame, because he himself scheduled a protest by civil rights organizations (and he cancelled it) based on information he himself made no effort to verify (apparently!).
He at the very least "instantly, blindly, and unquestioningly presumed" the information he was given was correct even if his underlings were the ones that made the mistake. or is he the kind of leader that doesn't take responsibility for mistakes of his staff/supporters/sources? Yeah...he probably is that kind of "leader".
But we were talking about Dymally, not Bush, I digress...
SmokingGun
Another take on the matter..
Sacramento Bee
BTW, if anyone actually cares to look into Riordan's record on education, it is huge with regard to accomplishment.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Link to video of the event.
SmokingGun
It's all about context.
Or so it used to be...
That remark is at most a little bit strange. He doesn´t look like he handles public situations very well. Telling small children with an attention span of 0.5 seconds his internet adress?
Originally posted by Anders
Being a good politican means making good decisions on behalf of the population, that is the standard you are judged upon.
Or so it used to be...
That remark is at most a little bit strange. He doesn´t look like he handles public situations very well. Telling small children with an attention span of 0.5 seconds his internet adress?
Hey speak for your own four year old. I can summerize every childhood developmental study in one sentence for you. They all turn out "They weren't as dumb as we thought they were."
My son uses the internet all the time and yes he is four. He has a full understanding of e-mail and website addresses. He doesn't get email yet, but he knows mommy and daddy do. Four year olds are often at an age where they don't understand the finer points of this information though. My son will often wander around telling people our address or phone number (very annoying) or asking other people theirs. He will also mention website addresses he likes or ask people about their email.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Hey speak for your own four year old. I can summerize every childhood developmental study in one sentence for you. They all turn out "They weren't as dumb as we thought they were."
My son uses the internet all the time and yes he is four. He has a full understanding of e-mail and website addresses. He doesn't get email yet, but he knows mommy and daddy do. Four year olds are often at an age where they don't understand the finer points of this information though. My son will often wander around telling people our address or phone number (very annoying) or asking other people theirs. He will also mention website addresses he likes or ask people about their email.
Nick
Look at how little attention the kids were paying in the video. Thats what I was referring to. On general your right but I think there were too many journalists, cameras, parents for them to keep focus.