Star Jones Reynolds responds to Bill O'Reilly/Fox News about Michelle
Obama!
Below is Star Jones' informed and provocative response to Bill
O'Reilly's comment about 'having a lynching party for Michelle Obama if
he finds out that she truly has no pride in her country.'
Bill O'Reilly said: 'I don't want to go on a lynching party against
Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how
the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels - that is a bad
country or a flawed nation, whatever - then that's legit. We'll track it
down.'
Star said: 'I'm sick to death of people like Fox News
host, Bill O'Reilly, and his ilk thinking
that he can use a racial slur against a black woman who could be the
next First Lady of the United States, give a half-assed apology and not
be taken to task and called on his crap. What the hell? If it's 'legit,'
you're going to 'track it down?'
And then what do you plan to do? How dare this white man with a
microphone and the trust of the public think that in 2008, he can still
put the words 'lynch and party' together in the same sentence with
reference to a black woman; in this case, Michelle Obama? I don't care
how you 'spin it' in the 'no spin zone,' that statement in and of itself
is racist, unacceptable and inappropriate on every level.
O'Reilly claims his comments were taken out of context. Please don't
insult my intelligence while you're insulting me. I've read the comments
and heard them delivered in O'Reilly's own voice; and there is no right
context that exists. So, his insincere apology and 'out-of-context'
excuse is not going to cut it with me.
And just so we're clear, this has nothing to do with the 2008
presidential election, me being a Democrat, him claiming to be
Independent while talking Republican, the liberal media or a
conservative point of view. To the contrary, this is about crossing a
line in the sand that needs to be drawn based on history, dignity, taste
and truth.
Bill, I'm not sure of where you come from, but let me tell you what the
phrase 'lynching party' conjures up to me, a black woman born in North
Carolina .. Those words depict the image of a group of white men who are
angry with the state of their own lives getting together, drinking more
than they need to drink, lamenting how some black person has moved
forward (usually ahead of them in stature or dignity), and had the
audacity to think that they are equal.. These same men for years,
instead of looking at what changes they should and could make in their
own lives that might remove that bitterness born of perceived privilege,
these white men take all of that resentment and anger and decide to get
together and drag the closest black person near them to their death by
hanging them from a tree - usually after violent beating, torturing and
violating their human dignity. Check your history books, because you
don't need a masters or a law degree from Harvard to know that is what
constitutes a 'lynching party.'
Imagine, Michelle and Barack Obama having the audacity to think that
they have the right to the American dream, hopes, and ideals. O'Reilly
must think to himself: how dare they have the arrogance to think they
can stand in front of this nation, challenge the status quo and express
the frustration of millions? When this happens, the first thing that
comes to mind for O'Reilly and people like him is: 'it's time for a
party.'
Not so fast...don't order the rope just yet.
Would O'Reilly ever in a million years use this phrase with reference
to Elizabeth Edwards, Cindy McCain or Judi Nathan? I mean, in all of the
statements and criticisms that were made about Judi Nathan, the one-time
mistress turned missus, of former presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani,
I never heard any talk of forming a lynch party because of something she
said or did.
So why is it that when you're referring to someone who's
African-American you must dig to a historical place of pain, agony and
death to symbolize your feelings? Lynching is not a joke to off-handedly
throw around and it is not a metaphor that has a place in political
commentary; provocative or otherwise. I admit that I come from a place
of personal outrage here having buried my 90 year-old grandfather last
year. This proud, amazing African-American man raised his family and
lived through the time when
he had to use separate water fountains, ride in the back of a bus, take
his wife on a date to the 'colored section' of a movie theater, and
avert his eyes when a white woman walked down the street for fear of
what a white man and his cronies might do if they felt the urge to
'party'; don't tell me that the phrase you chose, Mr. O'Reilly, was
taken out of context.
To add insult to injury, O'Reilly t ried to 'clarify' his statements,
by using the excuse that his comments were reminiscent of Supreme Court
Justice Clarence Thomas' use of the term 'high-tech lynching' during his
confirmation hearing. I reject that analogy.
You see Justice Thomas did mean to bring up the image of lynching in
its racist context. He was saying that politics and the media were using
a new technology to do to him what had been done to black men for many
years -- hang him. Regardless of if you agreed with Justice Thomas'
premise or not, if in fact -- Bill O'Reilly was referencing it 'the
context becomes even clearer. What annoys me more than anything is that
I get the feeling that one of the reasons Bill O'Reilly made this
statement, thinking he could get away with it in the first place, and
then followed it up with a lame apology in a half-hearted attempt to
smooth any ruffled feathers, is because he doesn't think that black
women will come out and go after him when he goes after us. Well, he's
dead wrong. Be clear Bill O'Reilly: there will be no lynch party for
that black woman And this black woman assures you that if you come for
her, you come for all of us.'
-- Star Jones Reynolds
Posted By:
Thursday, September 11th 2008 at 10:27PM
You can also
click
here to view all posts by this author...
