By: E&P Staff A number of Chicago Tribune readers were upset with Kathleen Parker's May 14 column about "full-blooded Americans," Tribune Public Editor Timothy J. McNulty reported today.
Parker, a conservative-leaning commentator who appears in more than 400 newspapers, wrote: "'A full-blooded American.' That's how 24-year-old Josh Fry of West Virginia described his preference for John McCain over Barack Obama. His feelings aren't racist, he explained. He would just be more comfortable with 'someone who is a full-blooded American as president.'"
The Washington Post Writers Group columnist went on to add: "Who 'gets' America? And who doesn't? ... It's about blood equity, heritage and commitment to hard-won American values. And roots.... (S)o-called 'ordinary Americans' ... know ... that their forefathers fought and died for an America that has worked pretty well for more than 200 years. What they sense is that their heritage is being swept under the carpet while multiculturalism becomes the new national narrative...."
One Tribune reader, as quoted by McNulty, responded: "Using the term 'full-blooded American' to describe John McCain smacks of nothing if not white supremacy." Another reader said: "Substitute 'half-breed' and 'mongrel' and you have an argument the KKK has been making since Reconstruction."
NcNulty himself said that for Parker "to write about bloodlines and claim it's not about race or ethnicity is nonsense. Those are code words. I suspect most readers understand that."
The public editor added: "The aim of the Tribune's Commentary page is to display a wide range of subjective opinions, even those some may consider offensive. Printing a column is not the same as sanctioning it."
Parker's column can be seen
here.
McNulty's piece can be seen
here.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here