Re: Lyching party comment

Subject: 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 tried 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 â?" 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