News-Record.com

The News & record has a right indeed an obligation to report on fiscal irregularities in local government; however, you referred to Mr. Alston as being "articulate"- you might as well have called him the "n" word. Maybe you do have a problem John. I would think a jounalists most prized asset is his credibility. I simply can't take you seriously you actually used a racial epithet. Call it what you will you used a racial epithet and called it serious journalism.

I'm sorry that you felt the need, but I understand why you do, to explain that your reporter has had virtually no interaction with Skip Alston as if to dispel any supposed "racism" on your reporter's part. My initial reaction is, "Oh Puh-LEEEEZ!" directed toward Skip Alston. Skip is right about one thing, though; there IS racism. He's wrong that he's the only one who can see it. And many of us know it for what it is, and what it is not.

Richard,

In earnest, I must ask: When did the word 'articulate' become a racial epithet? Especially one on par with the 'n' word?

Is this new? Am I considered racist for not knowing of the development?

Hello David - Are you a racist- I neither know nor care- I will assure you that when John Robinson described Mr. Alston as "articulate" John did indeed mean to be insulting. It seems he was left smarting from Mr. Alston's snubbing him.

Read the transcript of Skip Alston's comments and tell me how you or anyone could call him "articulate." He comes off as an uneducated bumpkin. By your criteria, Billy Yow must also be articulate!

Billy Yow is white - John wouldn't include "articulate" in any description of him.

Google search results for the phrase "articulate politician."

I had no idea that Adlai Stevenson was black. Or Howard Dean.

Of course Robinson wouldn't use "articulate" in any description of Yow.

Yow and articulate just don't belong on the same page.

Richard,

Skip Alston started this whole thing and the blame lies with him. The bottom line is, that if you are a politician, you are under a microscope. What you say matters and what Skip said was not right in any way, shape, or form. The N&R has an obligation to report on matters like this. If they didn't, they would be wrong. Nothing reported was untrue and Skip Alston has come forward admitting he said what he said. How would you like it if they didn't report on a Klan story or any case of rasism for that fact? If they didn't report on Skip Alston, they shouldn't report on any case of rasism. Richard, open your mind and see this for what it is. Now that was articulate.

Since Harris can read Robinson's mind, maybe he can read Skip's too. What does it mean when a black man calls a white man "boy", as Alston does?

It means he's articulate.

"Articulate" might be considered an unnecessary description of a leader, and some could read into it that when you use this word to describe a black person, you are suggesting that the average black person is by contrast inarticulate.

Some white people have certainly been guilty of saying (or thinking) something along the lines of "for a black man, he sure is articulate," suggesting that they expect anything but articulate communicators when they encounter black men.

However, I did not sense that John Robinson's use of "articulate" fell into that category of use.

You do have to be careful about how you use words.

Mr. Robinson, in his position, has to realize this.

Mr. Robinson probably knows that even when taking the best care to say things exactly as you mean, you can still be misinterpretted.

And sometimes people can point things out to you that may make you think differently about using a word (or may make you think differently about HOW, WHEN, and WITH WHOM you use a word).

In high school, I once dared to call a girl "cute." She informed me that that was the most insulting thing I could ever say to her. It had never crossed my mind to think that about the word "cute." I had intended it as a compliment; this young lady felt that the word was condescending. It was apparently a word she had heard used to describe her throughout her life, and she absolutely hated being called "cute." Out of respect for her, I never called her "cute" again. And to this day, I think carefully about using this word.

I teach eighth-grade, and a couple of years ago, I was addressing our team of students. I said something like, "a minority of the students on our team are causing most of the problems that we [teachers] deal with daily."

I made a horrible mistake. I used the word "minority."

At least one African-American student heard that word and was sure that in using the word "minority," I was referring to our team's African-American students. (She had always heard African-Americans referred to as "minorities.") She was deeply insulted, and though I do not think she called me a racist, I think that at least at that moment, she thought that that was exactly what I was. Her mother visited our school very shortly after that incident and confronted me about what her daughter had told her I had said. I told her what I had said and explained what I had meant by what I had said. I was not left with the impression that the mother believed me, though nothing more came of the incident.

When I used the term "minority," I meant that only a very small number of the students on our team were responsible for most of the behavioral problems we encountered on a regular basis.

The group to which I referred when I used the word "minority" was a multicultural group. Yes, we had African-American students in that group who were very much a part of the problem. Yes, we had white students in that group who were very much a part of the problem. Yes, we also had students who were neither white nor African-American who were also part of the problem. (I will say that while both genders are represented annually as being in that "minority" of students who cause most of the problems, you tend to have many more boys who fall into this "problem-child" category than you do girls. Is it sexist to observe and share this?)

The flip side of my comment, of course, is that a majority of the students on our team were doing a great job. That "majority" was by no stretch an all-white group. (I did take some time to try to teach my students the different ways that these words could be used. I added a brief historical, political, and geographical lesson by giving the example of South Africa, where apartheid existed until very recently. In that country, blacks are a "majority" and whites are a "minority," putting a different perspective and spin on things.)

I have not touched on the most important issue here at all, and that is Mr. Alston. Guilford County would almost certainly be a better place if both Mr. Alston and Billy Yow did not serve as representatives of our community. Neither man is likely to resign. Though both regularly reveal a great deal of ignorance, Mr. Yow and Mr. Alston also possess a great deal of arrogance about themselves. But I would put money on it that in the long-run, one or both of these men will have a very public and embarassing downfall. I realize now more clearly than ever how identical these two men are in how they act and how they view the world.

I have not heard from the News & Record about a letter to the editor I submitted a week ago--I will call or e-mail about that just out of curiosity--but as I pointed out in that letter, some of our local politicians need to ask themselves this question: "Which way is up?" (This is the title of a great Richard Pryor movie that exposes a man who gets too caught up in himself to realize that his once idealistic intentions of representing everyday people have been abandoned in favor of looking out solely after his own interests.) Mr. Yow and Mr. Alston are arguably the two Guilford County politicians who most need to look in the mirror and ask themselves, "Which way is up?" Because most often, neither has the slightest clue what the answer to that question is. (These two politicians are not entirely alone in Guilford County in needing to consider this question carefully.)

What a week! I've been called liberal, politically correct and racist.

As I said in the comments of the offending post, I know that "articulate" is a word that, when used to describe African Americans, can be considered insulting. I have heard the same thing about "poised."

I meant no insult. I think Skip IS well-spoken and, given that he wasn't interested in talking with us at the time, I found his reticence confounding and out of character. So, I decided to use the term because his eloquence was relevant to the post.

Mr. Brown, I don't expect Alston to explain what he meant by calling our reporter "boy." And while I appreciate you calling out Mr. Harris for an explanation, given that he got my mindset wrong, I doubt he'll be able to explain Skip's.

Mr. Floyd, I do know the importance of selecting the right word. I also know that some readers will try to twist the meaning of the word to suit their purposes, rather than mine. The point I tried to make in this post is that the question of what happened to St. James II won't be resolved by calling people names.

This all makes me wonder what we've become when the whole point of a story is missed and the focus becomes who is or who is not offended by a single word. If someone takes offense, so be it. You can't write an effective piece and constanly worry about people's feelings.
They're merely trying to turn the spotlight on to something other than what it was on, because it probably struck too close to the truth.
Read the whole article people and stop trying to turn the author into the enemy.

Won't be long til the county commissioners are slingin' water at each other again. Maybe we should have these folks appointed, instead of elected, too.