Spring Break
The Daily OrangeEdit | The wayward words of Boyce Watkins
Abstract:
When Boyce Watkins described Fox News panelist Juan Williams as a "happy negro" during a Sept. 26 edition of CNN's "Newsroom," Watkins stooped to the level of the man he came on the show to criticize - Bill O'Reilly....
- Displaying 1 - 15 of 15
Ravi Saini
posted 10/22/07 @ 2:21 AM EST
I have no way of knowing if the comment posted above was actually written by Professor Boyce Watkins, but I kind of hope it was, because it just adds to the mountain of evidence that he is a radical, hateful, accusatory, conspiracy-theorizing, paranoid, raving lunatic who continues to be an embarrassment to Syracuse University. If he truly believes that every SU student should be forced to take a class in Black History, I find that quite frightening. And his tendency to smear people with whom he disagrees as racists, or borderline Klansmen, or "happy Negroes" is nothing short of fascistic because it suppresses the open exchange of ideas that he claims to hold so dear. When Juan appeared on O'Reilly's show to talk about how it felt to be called a "happy Negro" he made an excellent point: people will be afraid to have open and honest discussions about race relations if they have to worry about being called a racist or a "happy Negro" if they say the wrong thing. (Wrong according to the self-appointed "Black leaders" who haven't done a thing for Black America but have mastered the art of playing the victim.)
Boyce cannot take any criticism without lashing out with insults against those that level them! It never occurs to him that it might be he who ought to apologize and be more civil and dignified next time! And how many of the insults that he hurled in this single comment apply equally to him?
A couple of examples:
"spend some time judging yourself"
"yet fail to see how they, or their organizations could be racist"
Boyce assumes that the Daily Orange has very few, or no, Black people on its staff. He also assumes that this editorial was not written by a Black person. That's because it's beyond his comprehension that any Black person could find his statements outrageous and offensive. Unless, of course, that person is a "happy Negro".
By the way, Boyce, it's "a lot", not "alot". Perhaps THE Ohio State University should revoke your Ph.D. since you cannot write with correct grammar.
And by the way, Boyce, I'm not going to refer to you as "Prof. Watkins" anymore because I have no respect for you whatsoever. Hurling charges of racism right and left...methinks thou dost protest too much! I find you beneath contempt. When you are denied tenure, or maybe fired, I have little doubt that you will play the race card and call up Cornell, Michael, Jesse, Al, et. al. to try to shame SU for dumping you as they should. You will probably go on CNN and accuse SU of not being able to deal with an opinionated, educated Black man.
Boyce cannot take any criticism without lashing out with insults against those that level them! It never occurs to him that it might be he who ought to apologize and be more civil and dignified next time! And how many of the insults that he hurled in this single comment apply equally to him?
A couple of examples:
"spend some time judging yourself"
"yet fail to see how they, or their organizations could be racist"
Boyce assumes that the Daily Orange has very few, or no, Black people on its staff. He also assumes that this editorial was not written by a Black person. That's because it's beyond his comprehension that any Black person could find his statements outrageous and offensive. Unless, of course, that person is a "happy Negro".
By the way, Boyce, it's "a lot", not "alot". Perhaps THE Ohio State University should revoke your Ph.D. since you cannot write with correct grammar.
And by the way, Boyce, I'm not going to refer to you as "Prof. Watkins" anymore because I have no respect for you whatsoever. Hurling charges of racism right and left...methinks thou dost protest too much! I find you beneath contempt. When you are denied tenure, or maybe fired, I have little doubt that you will play the race card and call up Cornell, Michael, Jesse, Al, et. al. to try to shame SU for dumping you as they should. You will probably go on CNN and accuse SU of not being able to deal with an opinionated, educated Black man.
Jonas Michaels
posted 10/22/07 @ 4:57 AM EST
Originally posted byBoyce Watkins
In that judgement, you will likely find that you have [b]alot[/b] to learn.
"Alot" is actually two words, DR. Watkins.
Exposure
posted 10/22/07 @ 11:06 AM EST
I'm utterly disgusted that you have the audacity to sit and pick out a grammatical error in an attempt to invalidate his comment. How dare you. There is nothing wrong with self-reflection! That's usually the goal of academia-to expose and expand your mind. It's funny that you call him a fascist, yet fascist usually are the frightened and unyielding individuals who don't let others contribute to the marketplace of ideas, so they virtually shut down and shut out unconventional messages.
Dr.Watkins is attempting to encourage you to study beyond the two pages of Black history you had in your high school textbook. When I went to SU, I studied everything and I graduated with over 30 more credits than my public communications curriculum required of me. Why? Well, I knew that when I graduated that I wanted to be a GLOBAL citizen. A global citizen knows issues pertaining to his or her own community and can speak on complex levels about problems that concern Native Americans, Latinos, Asians, etc. If you knew Black history beyond Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. you'd understand the historical context behind the term "happy negro." To the unlearned and quite frankly, ignorant, it's a foreign concept.
So if I understand your definition of fascist correctly, I guess the european history and religion teachers that encouraged me to expose myself to historical events beyond the Civil War, Christianity and Judaism are fascist too huh?
Maybe you're the one who is unlearned, unexposed and unwilling to step out of your box. Sort of flips that label of "fascist" huh?
Self-reflection should not be feared.
Dr.Watkins is attempting to encourage you to study beyond the two pages of Black history you had in your high school textbook. When I went to SU, I studied everything and I graduated with over 30 more credits than my public communications curriculum required of me. Why? Well, I knew that when I graduated that I wanted to be a GLOBAL citizen. A global citizen knows issues pertaining to his or her own community and can speak on complex levels about problems that concern Native Americans, Latinos, Asians, etc. If you knew Black history beyond Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. you'd understand the historical context behind the term "happy negro." To the unlearned and quite frankly, ignorant, it's a foreign concept.
So if I understand your definition of fascist correctly, I guess the european history and religion teachers that encouraged me to expose myself to historical events beyond the Civil War, Christianity and Judaism are fascist too huh?
Maybe you're the one who is unlearned, unexposed and unwilling to step out of your box. Sort of flips that label of "fascist" huh?
Self-reflection should not be feared.
Chip
posted 5/17/08 @ 1:43 PM EST
Originally posted byExposure
I'm utterly disgusted that you have the audacity to sit and pick out a grammatical error in an attempt to invalidate his comment. How dare you. There is nothing wrong with self-reflection! That's usually the goal of academia-to expose and expand your mind. It's funny that you call him a fascist, yet fascist usually are the frightened and unyielding individuals who don't let others contribute to the marketplace of ideas, so they virtually shut down and shut out unconventional messages.
Dr.Watkins is attempting to encourage you to study beyond the two pages of Black history you had in your high school textbook. When I went to SU, I studied everything and I graduated with over 30 more credits than my public communications curriculum required of me. Why? Well, I knew that when I graduated that I wanted to be a GLOBAL citizen. A global citizen knows issues pertaining to his or her own community and can speak on complex levels about problems that concern Native Americans, Latinos, Asians, etc. If you knew Black history beyond Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. you'd understand the historical context behind the term "happy negro." To the unlearned and quite frankly, ignorant, it's a foreign concept.
So if I understand your definition of fascist correctly, I guess the european history and religion teachers that encouraged me to expose myself to historical events beyond the Civil War, Christianity and Judaism are fascist too huh?
Maybe you're the one who is unlearned, unexposed and unwilling to step out of your box. Sort of flips that label of "fascist" huh?
Self-reflection should not be feared.
How is Dr. Watkin's use of 'happy negro' (and the many other questionable terms he uses) fit into the goal to "encourage us to study and expand our mind"? Or is it because you drink the same kool-aid, he gets a pass? If a conservative said similar controversal and inappropriate things (instead of mature debate), would you let that pass? Of course not! You bleed bias and hypocracy.
Ravi
posted 10/22/07 @ 11:34 PM EST
In response to "Exposure":
Congratulations to you on receiving a well-rounded education from SU. If Boyce is the true author of comment number 1 above, and I think he may be, let the record show that Boyce didn't just suggest that SU students study Black history, he believes they should be forced to do so. (Probably taught by uber-liberal professors who promote their agenda to a captive audience and who don't brook dissent--the kind that David Horowitz has written about extensively.)
Boyce stated that the editorial was inaccurate but did not point out exactly was inaccurate about it.
But, more importantly, he doesn't show any evidence of self-reflection on his part. I have not read any of his books, and frankly, they are not high on my reading list. But I invite Boyce or any of his fans and supporters to demonstrate that he has ever publicly written or said anything self-critical of his own prior statements or writings; or that he has ever written or said anything that shows he feels any shame or embarrassment about having slandered honest people with whom he disagrees, by hurling charges of racism or racial slurs like "happy Negro" or "borderline Klansman". I don't believe self-reflection is a concept with which Boyce has A LOT of personal experience. I stand by my statement that his behavior is fascistic precisely because it fits the description in the last sentence of "Exposure's" first paragraph to a t--trying to shut down the debate and monopolize the "marketplace of ideas" by intimidating into silence people whose opinion doesn't match that of the Black liberal groupthink, through implied threats of being smeared. This is an insidious technique used to force journalists to self-censor.
Just like Jesse, Al and their ilk, Boyce is rapidly becoming the boy who cried wolf--except he's the boy who cried racism. He even accused the Daily Orange's editorial board of being "infected" with the "disease" of institutionalized racism for writing this. For all he knows, the editorial was written by a Black person. Well, maybe somebody is going to accuse me of racism for using the word "boy". Well, sometimes you have to be willing to take a sucker punch and move on. Sometimes you have to hit back. Well, I'm going to give Boyce a taste of his own medicine and suggest that Boyce is at least as much of a racist as O'Reilly. Not a "reverse racist", just a racist.
Boyce, I will not refer to you as "Prof. Watkins" because to me you are beneath contempt. You can only respond to critism by hurling insults and racial slurs.
Congratulations to you on receiving a well-rounded education from SU. If Boyce is the true author of comment number 1 above, and I think he may be, let the record show that Boyce didn't just suggest that SU students study Black history, he believes they should be forced to do so. (Probably taught by uber-liberal professors who promote their agenda to a captive audience and who don't brook dissent--the kind that David Horowitz has written about extensively.)
Boyce stated that the editorial was inaccurate but did not point out exactly was inaccurate about it.
But, more importantly, he doesn't show any evidence of self-reflection on his part. I have not read any of his books, and frankly, they are not high on my reading list. But I invite Boyce or any of his fans and supporters to demonstrate that he has ever publicly written or said anything self-critical of his own prior statements or writings; or that he has ever written or said anything that shows he feels any shame or embarrassment about having slandered honest people with whom he disagrees, by hurling charges of racism or racial slurs like "happy Negro" or "borderline Klansman". I don't believe self-reflection is a concept with which Boyce has A LOT of personal experience. I stand by my statement that his behavior is fascistic precisely because it fits the description in the last sentence of "Exposure's" first paragraph to a t--trying to shut down the debate and monopolize the "marketplace of ideas" by intimidating into silence people whose opinion doesn't match that of the Black liberal groupthink, through implied threats of being smeared. This is an insidious technique used to force journalists to self-censor.
Just like Jesse, Al and their ilk, Boyce is rapidly becoming the boy who cried wolf--except he's the boy who cried racism. He even accused the Daily Orange's editorial board of being "infected" with the "disease" of institutionalized racism for writing this. For all he knows, the editorial was written by a Black person. Well, maybe somebody is going to accuse me of racism for using the word "boy". Well, sometimes you have to be willing to take a sucker punch and move on. Sometimes you have to hit back. Well, I'm going to give Boyce a taste of his own medicine and suggest that Boyce is at least as much of a racist as O'Reilly. Not a "reverse racist", just a racist.
Boyce, I will not refer to you as "Prof. Watkins" because to me you are beneath contempt. You can only respond to critism by hurling insults and racial slurs.
Ravi
posted 10/23/07 @ 12:35 AM EST
correction to comment 5: criticism
I should have proofread it better.
I should have proofread it better.
Exposure
posted 10/23/07 @ 3:42 PM EST
Wow I'm surprised that I'm even responding, but I love the dialogue that comes out of free speech.
Ravi, enough about Boyce Watkins and what he knows. What do you know? I'd like to know the root of your comments because you seem to be very condescending. You don't have to like him, but you should respect him. Why? Well, because whether you choose to accept his comments or not they stem from a knowledge base that you've yet to explore.
If O'Reilly can have a platform for his speech why should Dr. Watkins be silenced? It sounds a little bit of selective free speech if you ask me.
See there's a difference between having an opinion about someone and his or her POV and having an INFORMED opinion. I'm concluding from your own admission of not reading his books and the misunderstanding the historical context behind the term "happy negro" that you base your comments on the former.
"Happy Negro" is not a racial slur. Insult, yes. Racial slur, no. Pick up any 19th century Black history book and read before you attempt to comment. It's honestly that simple. You have no idea what the term is even in reference to.
Educate yourself about the divisive techniques former slave master Willie Lynch used to breakdown the Black slave community. How people like Bill O'Reilly DIVERT attention from their own ignorance in an attempt to put the national spotlight on debate that highlights two different and often debatable schools of thought in the Black community.
I'm praying that your next retort won't be something silly like "colonism has had no resounding impact on today's society" because if it is, this dialogue is waste of time and energy.
Now unlike you, I didn't even think of pointing out that grammatical error in an effort to invalidate your comment because quite frankly that's what weak people do when their comments have no backing and substance.
Ravi, enough about Boyce Watkins and what he knows. What do you know? I'd like to know the root of your comments because you seem to be very condescending. You don't have to like him, but you should respect him. Why? Well, because whether you choose to accept his comments or not they stem from a knowledge base that you've yet to explore.
If O'Reilly can have a platform for his speech why should Dr. Watkins be silenced? It sounds a little bit of selective free speech if you ask me.
See there's a difference between having an opinion about someone and his or her POV and having an INFORMED opinion. I'm concluding from your own admission of not reading his books and the misunderstanding the historical context behind the term "happy negro" that you base your comments on the former.
"Happy Negro" is not a racial slur. Insult, yes. Racial slur, no. Pick up any 19th century Black history book and read before you attempt to comment. It's honestly that simple. You have no idea what the term is even in reference to.
Educate yourself about the divisive techniques former slave master Willie Lynch used to breakdown the Black slave community. How people like Bill O'Reilly DIVERT attention from their own ignorance in an attempt to put the national spotlight on debate that highlights two different and often debatable schools of thought in the Black community.
I'm praying that your next retort won't be something silly like "colonism has had no resounding impact on today's society" because if it is, this dialogue is waste of time and energy.
Now unlike you, I didn't even think of pointing out that grammatical error in an effort to invalidate your comment because quite frankly that's what weak people do when their comments have no backing and substance.
Ravi Saini
posted 10/23/07 @ 4:39 PM EST
To "Exposure" (Who apparently wishes to remain anonymous by hiding behind a silly pseudonym):
Thank you for your response. I appreciate being insulted and misquoted. (Sarcasm.)
To set the record straight, I did not call for Boyce Watkins to be "silenced", rather, publicly shamed and exposed for the clown, and embarrassment to SU that he is. He is a fat, Black, liberal version of Ann Coulter. I'm glad he's been exposed and I don't expect to see him back on CNN anytime soon.
To "Exposure": Have you read any of Boyce's books? I haven't, but it doesn't take a Ph.D. in Black History to know that "happy Negro" is not a compliment. I would call it hate speech and possibly even fighting words. For good or ill, hate speech is protected by the Constitution. Juan Williams has too much dignity and self-respect to step into the gutter to respond in kind. I neither like nor respect Boyce. And I'm sure a great many Black people feel the same way.
The points that I made previously (in above comments) were strong and backed by a lot of substance. It's people who respond to criticism by hurling insults and charges of racism or ignorance whose arguments are weak. I think I have made my case and we will let the readers decide for themselves. (If there are any readers, that is.)
Thank you for your response. I appreciate being insulted and misquoted. (Sarcasm.)
To set the record straight, I did not call for Boyce Watkins to be "silenced", rather, publicly shamed and exposed for the clown, and embarrassment to SU that he is. He is a fat, Black, liberal version of Ann Coulter. I'm glad he's been exposed and I don't expect to see him back on CNN anytime soon.
To "Exposure": Have you read any of Boyce's books? I haven't, but it doesn't take a Ph.D. in Black History to know that "happy Negro" is not a compliment. I would call it hate speech and possibly even fighting words. For good or ill, hate speech is protected by the Constitution. Juan Williams has too much dignity and self-respect to step into the gutter to respond in kind. I neither like nor respect Boyce. And I'm sure a great many Black people feel the same way.
The points that I made previously (in above comments) were strong and backed by a lot of substance. It's people who respond to criticism by hurling insults and charges of racism or ignorance whose arguments are weak. I think I have made my case and we will let the readers decide for themselves. (If there are any readers, that is.)
Chip
posted 5/17/08 @ 6:58 PM EST
Originally posted byRavi Saini
To "Exposure" (Who apparently wishes to remain anonymous by hiding behind a silly pseudonym):
Thank you for your response. I appreciate being insulted and misquoted. (Sarcasm.)
To set the record straight, I did not call for Boyce Watkins to be "silenced", rather, publicly shamed and exposed for the clown, and embarrassment to SU that he is. He is a fat, Black, liberal version of Ann Coulter. I'm glad he's been exposed and I don't expect to see him back on CNN anytime soon.
To "Exposure": Have you read any of Boyce's books? I haven't, but it doesn't take a Ph.D. in Black History to know that "happy Negro" is not a compliment. I would call it hate speech and possibly even fighting words. For good or ill, hate speech is protected by the Constitution. Juan Williams has too much dignity and self-respect to step into the gutter to respond in kind. I neither like nor respect Boyce. And I'm sure a great many Black people feel the same way.
The points that I made previously (in above comments) were strong and backed by a lot of substance. It's people who respond to criticism by hurling insults and charges of racism or ignorance whose arguments are weak. I think I have made my case and we will let the readers decide for themselves. (If there are any readers, that is.)
I love Exposure's attempt to spin Wankin's use of 'happy negro'. It's obvious what Boyce means in the context of the Bill O and the Factor when he uses this term... "A black man who can't think for himself, an Uncle Tom, etc" So Watkin's approach is..."If you don't agree with my liberal and radical positons, I'm going to put you down. However, if you ever use similar terms towards me (e.g., an uppity negro), you are wrong, you have no right, and you are a total racist!" The double-standard is just incredible.
zhiaglasgow
posted 5/15/08 @ 4:50 PM EST
on coast to coast radio program sunday night, may 11th, after 12m on wsyr, the host ian ponnet's guest was a doctor named hazlen
he wrote a book on dr. mary's monkey... mary sherman was a researcher, biologist who prefected a strain of virus in a secret louisianna lab... c. 1950-60's
this virus is cancer and hiv-aids. the doctor promised his dying father to disclose the truth...
he said not only did they do test on unsuspecting blks but the polio vaccine is contaminated with cancer
he wrote a book on dr. mary's monkey... mary sherman was a researcher, biologist who prefected a strain of virus in a secret louisianna lab... c. 1950-60's
this virus is cancer and hiv-aids. the doctor promised his dying father to disclose the truth...
he said not only did they do test on unsuspecting blks but the polio vaccine is contaminated with cancer
Chip
posted 5/16/08 @ 1:25 PM EST
I would like Watkin's to define "happy negro"? At the time, I suspect he used it to describe Juan Williams and any black who does not agree with his very liberal point of view. The message... disagreement with me deserves put-down and I get a pass in doing so. And he is a PhD professor? Now, reverse this... just imagine the Watkins, Cantor, and liberal FIRESTORM if Juan (or anyone else) had called Boyce an "uppity negro"?! The hypocracy and double-standard is just incredible!
martin vogt
posted 5/18/08 @ 1:10 PM EST
As a 1967 business school graduate I was dismayed to hear Nancy Cantor's lame response to the Fox News reporter's queries last week. It seems that Syracuse University is no different from the majority of our institutions of higher learning that have become incubators for ultra liberal propaganda being spewed to our youth ad nauseum.
This is a sad day indeed.
This is a sad day indeed.
Chip
posted 5/19/08 @ 3:26 PM EST
Originally posted bymartin vogt
As a 1967 business school graduate I was dismayed to hear Nancy Cantor's lame response to the Fox News reporter's queries last week. It seems that Syracuse University is no different from the majority of our institutions of higher learning that have become incubators for ultra liberal propaganda being spewed to our youth ad nauseum.
This is a sad day indeed.
Yes, it is sad. All that I want to see is equal discourse and objective consideration of all input and ideas. If, for example, you were to simply state that you have "a few concerns in the lowing of addmissions standards for non-white applicants". The very likely and common screaming response; "You are racist!" Period, end of conversation. And, evern worse, if anyone speaks-up to try to allow more than one point of view, they are labeled as a 'racist' as well (or in the case of Juan William's... a happy negro aka Uncle Tom). It is really shocking how biased and subjective it can be!
Michael (MBA)
posted 5/24/08 @ 3:22 PM EST
The rel issue is tenured faculty.
Unlike any other profession, tenured faculty are bullet proof. Intellectual light weights such as Boyce Watkins are able to throw verbal bombs with impugnity.
My belief is that the system allows intelectual cowards to behave irresponsibly with no consequence.
It is the system, not the disreputable hiding within it.
Unlike any other profession, tenured faculty are bullet proof. Intellectual light weights such as Boyce Watkins are able to throw verbal bombs with impugnity.
My belief is that the system allows intelectual cowards to behave irresponsibly with no consequence.
It is the system, not the disreputable hiding within it.
- Displaying 1 - 15 of 15
Boyce Watkins
posted 10/18/07 @ 6:25 AM EST
It is also reflective of the fact that many members of the white media, some of whom have incredibly undiversified staffs, are very quick to judge black people while they know nothing about us or our culture.
Before you spend time judging me or black people in general on our behavior, spend some time judging yourself. In that judgement, you will likely find that you have alot to learn. You will also learn that your comments were quite predictable, as many simple-minded commentators around the country have written or said the same thing.
Most of these individuals work for outlets that don't even hire people of color, yet fail to see how they, or their organizations could be racist.
How many black people work for the Daily Orange? Yep, that's what I thought. Institutionalized racism is a disease.....I think you might be infected.