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 the 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, 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 a 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 -- 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
