http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-chait1oct01,0,3165277.column?coll=la-opinion-columnistsJONATHAN CHAIT
Jonathan Chait: George Allen -- Accidental Racist?
Sometimes, California boys just like Confederate symbols, calling people 'macaca' and mispronouncing 'Niger.'
Jonathan Chait
October 1, 2006
I FEEL JUST TERRIBLE for George Allen. Here he is, a Republican senator running for reelection in Virginia, a potential presidential candidate, a genuine man who obviously has not a prejudiced bone in his body. And yet he has suffered from a series of coincidences, one after another, that have given skeptics the unfortunate misimpression that he is a racist.
Last May, my colleague, Ryan Lizza, wrote an article in the New Republic showing how Allen acquired a strong affinity for the Confederacy as a young man growing up in California. Allen had a Confederate flag on his car and wore a Confederate pin — not the usual passions for a West Coast kid who, at the time, had never lived in the South. One of Allen's former high school classmates told Lizza, "Allen is known as a racist in our Southern California society."
But, as Allen explained, nothing could be further from the truth. When he was a young man, Allen explained to Lizza, "I generally bucked authority, and the rebel flag was just a way to express that attitude." This makes perfect sense. What Southern California teen has not donned the stars and bars as a way of expressing youthful rebellion?
The faux controversy probably would have died out except that, earlier this year, Allen publicly singled out a dark-skinned young man at a campaign rally, calling him "macaca" and calling out, "Welcome to America." Somehow this became a matter of controversy. But, I ask you, what's wrong with welcoming immigrants, or immigrant-looking people (you know what I mean) to America? Is this not the essence of hospitality?
As for "macaca," Allen later explained with obvious sincerity that it was simply a made-up word. Alas, this made-up word also happens to be a slur against dark-skinned people, one common among French Tunisians, and it also happens that Allen's mother is French Tunisian, and that Allen speaks French.
What bad luck. My friend once decided to welcome a new family to the neighborhood. He knew they were Christian, so he decided to surprise them with a cross. Except he knew they couldn't see it at night, so he decided to set it ablaze. Well, that family was black, and it turns out that burning crosses have a certain negative connotation with some black families. So you can just imagine his embarrassment over the whole misunderstanding. I'm sure most of us have had something like this happen.
In another set of unlucky coincidences, there have been a series of reports by people who remember Allen in his college and post-college days referring to African Americans as "niggers." The accusers, numbering five as of press time, recall Allen using the word in a variety of settings.
Allen's campaign manager has tried to explain that all these recollections are false. And yet the liberal media insists on jumping to the most negative conclusion. Have the skeptics ever considered some alternative possibilities? Maybe Allen's youthful compatriots included an unusually large number of pathological liars. Or maybe they're telling the truth, but Allen was merely trying to launch a discussion of the African country Niger and mispronounced it. Exculpatory possibilities abound.
Anyway, even if these charges were true, does it really amount to anything? National Review's John Miller has wisely pointed out that Allen's Democratic opponent in his current Senate race, Jim Webb, once wrote historical novels that, in an attempt to reproduce authentic dialogue, had characters using the n-word. As Miller noted: "It's worth noting that this was a bestselling book. A lot more people have encountered racial epithets from having read Webb's novels than from having heard Allen speak them (and Allen, crucially, has denied speaking them)."
That's absolutely right. Now, some would say that the n-word is an issue because it's a window into a person's racial views; someone who habitually refers to black people that way is probably a racist. In fact, the only issue is how many people are harmed by coming into contact with the word itself. This is exactly why Mark Twain is now viewed as one of the most insidious racists in American history.
Or do I have this all wrong?
jchait@latimescolumnists.com
