Title Bout

A bit of a controversy over at the Westview News--"the Voice of the West Village"--where columnist James Lincoln Collier used the N-word in the headline of an editorial. I write "the N-word" because of social convention.  I believe we should be offended, if at all, by ideas, not particular words.  In fact, no word should be allowed to have such power. But because, as Collier's case shows, this particular word can make people ignore everything else, I'll go along with society's expectations.

His headline was "The N***** In The White House."  A number of people have responded to the piece saying this is offensive and unacceptable, regardless of the context.

Ah yes, the context.  Every piece I've read about the dust-up hastens to add the editorial is pro-Obama and anti-Republican, as if there were a possibility it could be anything else.  Obviously he's attacking the right--he's using the word itself to attack them, as well as draw attention to his piece.  Which he certainly has.

Unfortunately, the piece is not available at the paper's website, so I'll have to go on what I could read from the photo-reproduction in the link.

He starts the editorial talking about Eric Cantor's recent primary defeat, claiming that Cantor lost because his opponent was able to tie him to Obama, and that his opponent effectively used a photo of Cantor standing next to the President to bring him down.  This isn't entirely true.  It's not tying Cantor to the President so much as tying Cantor to amnesty--which the President supports as well--that brought him down.  But either way, Collier seems shocked that tying a Republican candidate to a Democratic president made him unpopular in a heavily Republican district.

He then goes on to note that Presidents have been attacked harshly before.  I thought he might discuss what the past two Presidents have been through, but instead he mentions FDR and Lincoln--the latter being "shot for his tolerance of the recent enemy." Collier's point here is Obama is such a centrist that there's no reason for Republicans to attack him, but instead should appreciate what a good deal they've got.

Thus he concludes "It is possible to draw only one conclusion: these far right voters hate Obama because he is black." He then goes on to explain how deep the racism of the right is, and how the media is afraid to discuss it.

He ends his piece explaining why polls showed Cantor far ahead--because citizens were afraid to admit they supported the other guy since that would make them sound racist.

Maybe you can see what I'm getting at here.  We've got things backwards.  The title of the piece shouldn't be considered offensive so much as nonsensical.  It's the piece itself that's offensive.  Or maybe what's offensive is that anyone could agree with this idiot.