• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Thoughts re: Gov Northam and key others' handling of the matter of the blackface/KKK yr. book image

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Part I of II

Ralph is a VA state-level official, not a federal one; thus I lack portfolio to have a normative stance re: his resigning. I neither live in nor own property in VA.

Thoughts re: whether Northam is/isn't one of the two persons in the image:
  • Northam's handling of the matter:
    • Day 1:
      • Northam said he is one of the persons shown in the image, but curiously he didn't indicate which be him.
        • That struck me as an odd statement then and, though on "day 2" he recanted that claim with a plausible explanation, his having made it remains odd. (see "Day 2" below)
      • Northam expressed contrition for donning the costume in the photo, and his apology is for the right things.

        "I am deeply sorry for the decision I made to appear as I did in this photo and for the hurt that decision caused then and now. That photo and the racist and offensive attitudes it represents does not reflect the person I am today or the way that I conducted myself as a soldier, a doctor and a public servant. I am deeply sorry. I am ready to do the hard work of regaining your trust."
        • I judge apologies by whether they indicate the "sinner" understands the the nature of his/her transgression(s) and how it affects the slighted parties.
    • Day 2:
      • Northam said his is not one of the persons in the image, explaining that on "day 1," he "owned" the photo's appearance on his yearbook page based on reasonable inference -- it's his page in the yearbook and the picture is there -- and the "day 1" crush of demands for a response. He also stated that unlike the other images on that page, the blackface/KKK one isn't an image he submitted. Northam posited that the picture's presence results from an editorial error the 1984 yearbook production team made.
        • Well, his explanation is plausible, and elements of it are somewhat verifiable. I'll await feedback from unrelated parties who can speak to his remarks.
        • Coming after Northam's statement that he's one of the people in the image, his denial asks much of folks who have no personal relationship with him. His explanation would, for me, be more palatable had he yesterday given as his reasons for "owning" the image the rationale he today shared.
      • Northam volunteered that in 1984 entered a dance contest dressed as Michael Jackson and in doing so, he'd applied dark shoe polish to his face. Northam stated he didn't understand the opprobrium of doing so and he said his comprehension of the implications and insult of his having done so has at some point in the apparently distant past, changed. He said appearing in dark face paint was something of which he didn't know better than to do then, and that he's come to realize that doing so showed tacit approval for perpetuating racist tropes, and for that reason his doing so was wrong.
        • I sense that Northam understands what's wrong with blackface. That's more than I can say for a lot of white folks.
        • Northam "owned" his 1984 ignorance re: blackface. That's as it should be.
        • A question I have: Is the blackfaced person Northam dressed for the dance contest?
      • During his press conference, he asked his wife?/aide? to remind him of the persona he adopted, yet he'd just minutes before told us he'd dressed as Michael Jackson.
        • That's one hell of a "brain fart" to have given that his "mea culpa" relies, in part on the line of "blackface wasn't beneath me back then, but I've changed." Maybe he truly had a "brain fart." I don't know, but I'd ask him about it.
      • Northam says he didn't buy the yearbook; thus he didn't know of the image.
        • I'm willing to accept that as true. The claim likely can't be dis-/proven, so there's no point in not accepting it. More importantly, his having bought the book is ingermane to the questions needing answers:
          • Is Northam a racist or a reformed racist? To the extent no "smoking gun" answer exists, has the overwhelming preponderance of Northam's behavior between 1984 and 2019 earned him the benefit of the doubt regarding his explication of the matter and attestations about his character and mindset?
        • Not knowing of the image's placement is a reasonable excuse for not having addressed it prior to now.
    • Additional thoughts:
      • Credible is Northam's claim of having, in 1984, ignored the implications of blackface. The bigger "problem" is that ignorance is no exculpation for one who thinks himself "not racist" posing in a photo with someone wearing a KKK outfit. If Northam is the person in blackface, he's got more to atone for than being thus costumed. That's my view as someone who in the 1990s ended an ~15 year friendship due to the former friend's racially discriminatory behavior.

(cont'd due to character limit)
 
(continued from Part I)

Part II of II

Thoughts re: key others' handling of the matter:
  • Prominent Democrats:
    • Dems, by and large and resoundingly demanded Northam resign.
      • Given Dem's recrimination of GOP-ers who exhibit racism, Dems aren't being hypocritical about the matter. They're at least holding one of their own to the same standards to which they hold Republicans.
      • I give Dems credit for standing behind their commitment to expunge racists/racism from their party.
      • I understand why Dems, regardless of whether Northam is one of the persons in the photo, demand Northam yield his governorship. Racism is a mindset, and it's very hard for people who know one well to "get into one's head." There's no way total strangers can do so; thus when someone who once appeared to have proponed racist notions, it's difficult to judge whether they're still (or not still) "that person."

        Were Dems to forbear Northam's remaining VA's governor, they'd necessarily be forbearing too an appearance of impropriety. The "appearance of impropriety" standard is high one to meet, but it's also the right one to meet, particularly for folks holding high public office.
    • VA's lieutenant governor hasn't called for Northam's resignation.
      • I understand his quietude; he'd become governor if Northam resigns.
  • Prominent Republicans:
    • Many prominent GOP-ers have demanded Northam resign.
      • Okay, so while it's, at least in a prima facie sense, fitting for GOP-ers to do so, GOP-ers don't exhibit such rectitude regarding other GOP-ers, save when one of them is found to have relatively recently displayed the most overtly bigoted/racist behaviors.
      • Even if he were to demur passing judgment on Northam, Trump has not availed himself of the opportunity to at least decry blackface and the KKK, both of which appear in the photo. Given the recriminations Trump has faced re: his own racist behavior, one'd think he'd, were he indeed not a racist, use Northam's situation as a vehicle for decrying racist tropes, stereotypes, mindsets, etc. This, of course, not the first time Trump's demurred thus.

Closing thoughts:
  • Northam's early years -- high school and college -- were ones that exposed him to a lot Black folks. Though he and I are roughly the same age, I can count on two hands the quantity of Black folks with whom, during that same same period, I had regular contact. That said, I developed close relationships with them because it was simply natural to do so:
    - my parent's housekeeper -- now deceased; she was a huge influence on my life, worldview, etc.; I cherished her as one of my key mentors,
    - her kids -- they are two of my very closest friends,
    - the Black guy in my high school class -- we remain friends,
    - the two Black kids who lived in my 'hood -- we remain friends, and
    - a couple Black classmates -- we had classes together and socialized outside of class; we trade Christmas/birthday cards and long "catch up" phone calls; I'd call them close acquaintances rather than friends.

    I don't know what relationships Northam developed with the Black folks in his formative years; however, given their abundance, I'd think he'd have developed enduring relationships with a few of them. Whether Northam did, I cannot say. I can say his case would be greatly abetted were the Black folks with whom he was close to speak up on his behalf.
  • As I stated clearly at the outset of my OP, I haven't the right to say what Northam should do. I can say that were I Northam, unless I could quickly (within a week or two at the outside) produce probative, puissant proof (inductive or deductive) I am not one of the people in it, I would resign. I would because:
    • Leadership, without regard to politics --> Legitimate dubitability about my views re: race and minorities' existential parity with whites compromise my ability to lead and be credible to pretty much anyone who abhors and rejects racism. That's reason enough to resign for one cannot aptly and ably serve people who have material doubts about one's mindset/allegiances to minority members of one's "flock." Once one's ability to lead is compromised by legitimate concerns about the probity of one's character, one should no longer hold a leadership position, be it on a local, state or national level.
    • Big political picture --> The photo and the discomfiture and doubts deriving from its presence on the yearbook page blemishes oneself and the people with whom one associates. Insofar as the person who'd assume the mantle of state executive is also a Democrat, there's no political case for one to remain governor.

End of opening post (OP) pair.
 
He was a grown man. An intelligent man. In medical school. In the 1980s. Not the 1950s. He knew better.

(A) The fact that he thought it was possible that he was the one in the KKK outfit or the one in blackface is telling.

(B) His retraction of his admission is replete with stinkiosity.
 
He was a grown man. An intelligent man. In medical school. In the 1980s. Not the 1950s. He knew better.

(A) The fact that he thought it was possible that he was the one in the KKK outfit or the one in blackface is telling.

(B) His retraction of his admission is replete with stinkiosity.

Off-Topic/red:
Well, there's a portmanteau, of sorts, that I've never before seen. I'm going to try remembering it; it's one I'm sure I'll have ample opportunity to use.
 
Our elected leaders should be above even suspicion. Hang his ass out to dry. Pick another asshat out of the waiting pool of asshats.

These people are not really all that special or smart or talented. They just give a good line of bull**** and fundraise. That's all they ****ing do...
 
Our elected leaders should be above even suspicion. ...

I agree with the above portion of your comments. That I do is why I mentioned and provided in "Part II" expositive "appearance of impropriety" links.
 
Tolstoy finally chimes in..........:lamo

......tl;dr X 2
 
I do not believe in punishing people for something that they did 30+ years ago unless it is/was particularly egregious, like murder for example. People can change and views that they once had 30 years ago may not apply today.

As a society we need to stop looking to punish people for any indiscretion. People make mistakes in life. As long as they "repent" and do not repeat the same mistake then they should be forgiven for it. And politicians are people. There isn't a single one that hasn't made mistakes in their lives. No one is pure. I know people want to hold politicians to a higher standard but frankly that is a fools task.

In history there have been times where anyone that was not "pure" was condemned and ostracized. This were NOT good times in history. The Scarlet Letter, though a work of fiction was based on some truth. In history any woman that wasn't "pure" on her marriage night was shamed, in some cases put to death. Racism is based on "impurities". Anyone that did not follow the Bible's teachings (be it the Christian bible or the Quran) was punished. Do we really want to go down this path of expecting our politicians to be "pure"? Like I said, its a fools task.

Northam did not violate any laws. Has not repeated the act. He apologized for it.

Let it go.
 
I do not believe in punishing people for something that they did 30+ years ago unless it is/was particularly egregious, like murder for example. People can change and views that they once had 30 years ago may not apply today.

As a society we need to stop looking to punish people for any indiscretion. People make mistakes in life. As long as they "repent" and do not repeat the same mistake then they should be forgiven for it. And politicians are people. There isn't a single one that hasn't made mistakes in their lives. No one is pure. I know people want to hold politicians to a higher standard but frankly that is a fools task.

In history there have been times where anyone that was not "pure" was condemned and ostracized. This were NOT good times in history. The Scarlet Letter, though a work of fiction was based on some truth. In history any woman that wasn't "pure" on her marriage night was shamed, in some cases put to death. Racism is based on "impurities". Anyone that did not follow the Bible's teachings (be it the Christian bible or the Quran) was punished. Do we really want to go down this path of expecting our politicians to be "pure"? Like I said, its a fools task.

Northam did not violate any laws. Has not repeated the act. He apologized for it.

Let it go.

What did Northam apologize for? The press conference was more evidence that he and whomever advises him are out of their depth. I changed my lean here a while back from “leans conservative” to “private.” I can see points and policies from both sides. This was ham-fisted at best and a career ender at worst. (The reaction to the yearbook photos) Did you watch the press conference?
 
I do not believe in punishing people for something that they did 30+ years ago unless it is/was particularly egregious, like murder for example. People can change and views that they once had 30 years ago may not apply today.

As a society we need to stop looking to punish people for any indiscretion. People make mistakes in life. As long as they "repent" and do not repeat the same mistake then they should be forgiven for it. And politicians are people. There isn't a single one that hasn't made mistakes in their lives. No one is pure. I know people want to hold politicians to a higher standard but frankly that is a fools task.

In history there have been times where anyone that was not "pure" was condemned and ostracized. This were NOT good times in history. The Scarlet Letter, though a work of fiction was based on some truth. In history any woman that wasn't "pure" on her marriage night was shamed, in some cases put to death. Racism is based on "impurities". Anyone that did not follow the Bible's teachings (be it the Christian bible or the Quran) was punished. Do we really want to go down this path of expecting our politicians to be "pure"? Like I said, its a fools task.

Northam did not violate any laws. Has not repeated the act. He apologized for it.

Let it go.
I concur, for the most part but not entirely, with the two central themes in your remarks; however, you and I clearly view differently implementing them.

Red:
I addressed the "red" theme in the OP:

"...the questions needing answers:​


  • [*=1]Is Northam a racist or a reformed racist? To the extent no "smoking gun" answer exists, has the overwhelming preponderance of Northam's behavior between 1984 and 2019 earned him the benefit of the doubt regarding his explication of the matter and attestations about his character and mindset?



Blue:
Indiscretions reflect the nature of one's character and judgment. Poor character and judgment have consequences. I addressed an aspect of that in my OP:
Credible is Northam's claim of having, in 1984, ignored the implications of blackface. The bigger "problem" is that ignorance is no exculpation for one who thinks himself "not racist" posing in a photo with someone wearing a KKK outfit. If Northam is the person in blackface, he's got more to atone for than being thus costumed.


Pink:
Some people do, and, IMO, we all should. Holders of public office necessarily hold the public's trust, and governors hold the trust of every citizen in his/her state. The revelations about Northam augur to show there was a time in Northam's life when he could not be trusted to dispassionately form and act on judgments about Blacks/minorities. As noted in the "red" section above, the key questions pertain to (1) whether he was indeed a racist, and (2) whether he has indeed disabused himself of racist notions (if he indeed once held them).

The community of folks who can ably and confidently attest to the answers to those questions is small, and I'm no member of it. I know I don't yet see folks, particularly folks with whom Northam was close during his young adult years, "coming out of the woodworK" and credibly proffering poignant plaudits that answer those questions, or at least shed light on the answers to them, in ways that'd support Northam's explanations and averrances about his character. (Admittedly, it's early yet, so I can give them a few days to gather their memories and form a coherent statements that are tonally, factually and contextually wholly accurate.)


Tan:
Racism is not "based on impurities;" it is itself an impurity.


Teal:
Nobody demands the binary grade of "purity." Even so, the measure of "purity" whereof one had better sense than to have made merry of minstrelsy and membership in the KKK isn't too much "purity" to demand or expect of one who'd solicit the public's trust and who avers to propose, support and enforce public policy with due consideration and balancing of the needs and trust of a whole state's population.
 
Back before I retired, it was the practice of many of the employees of my company to wear costumes to work on Halloween day. Although the event wasn't sponsored, HR still would take pictures, and hand out a few prizes.

One year, I decided to dress up in blackface as a Rastafarian (and, no, I didn't use shoe polish. That stuff doesn't come off easily. I used professional makeup that I bought in a theatrical supply store). On another year, I decided to dress up as Hitler in khakis and a Sam Browne belt. For the Rastaman character, HR awarded me a first prize. For the Hitler character, I got a third prize. I still have the pictures.

I don't regret these events, and these costumes are nothing I would deem worthy of an apology.

In conclusion, I can say I am glad I never decided to get into politics.

:2party:
 
Back before I retired, it was the practice of many of the employees of my company to wear costumes to work on Halloween day. Although the event wasn't sponsored, HR still would take pictures, and hand out a few prizes.

One year, I decided to dress up in blackface as a Rastafarian (and, no, I didn't use shoe polish. That stuff doesn't come off easily. I used professional makeup that I bought in a theatrical supply store). On another year, I decided to dress up as Hitler in khakis and a Sam Browne belt. For the Rastaman character, HR awarded me a first prize. For the Hitler character, I got a third prize. I still have the pictures.

I don't regret these events, and these costumes are nothing I would deem worthy of an apology.

In conclusion, I can say I am glad I never decided to get into politics.

:2party:



giphy.gif
 
Back
Top Bottom