"Stupid dirty girl"

According to this story, California state education secretary Richard Riordan put his foot in his mouth big time, telling a little girl that her name (Isis) meant "stupid dirty girl" at a promotional event for summer reading at the Santa Barbara library.

But in a startling turn of events, her mom isn't going to sue.

The girl's mother, Trinity Lila of Goleta, said her daughter was fine, and she considered the issue over.

"Obviously it hurt her feelings, but she didn't take it personally. She knew he was wrong and she let it go," Lila said. "I'm not going to sue them for therapy bills."

"He's already apologized repeatedly," Lila added.

(Just to counter-act the Post-Traumatic Slave Disorder thread...)

I can see how this made news :biglaugha

I assumed, as I read the first post, that Isis was a black girl, and I was horrified by the guy's comment. Turns out she's white. Now I just think he's an ass who made a bad joke.

I wasn't the only one to make the assumption. If you read the linked article, the NAACP called for this guy's resignation, and a Democratic state Assemblyman said the girl was black and questioned whether such a comment would ever be made to a white child.

Now that they realize she is white, they are easing off a little bit. They are still criticising the guy, but the racial aspect of it has vanished.

It's amazing how race issues cause people to freak out.

Amazing how the lack of it causes them to lose their ire.

If these organizations are truly about equality, they should support and defend the child no matter what race she may be. They've engaged in their own form of tacit racism by indicating "She's white, so she doesn't count."

Idiots.

I'm sorry, but I just think it is so funny. I was laughing my ass off when I heard what he said. It would have been funny regardless of her race. Not only should he not get in any trouble, someone should buy him a beer.

You're right. They have lost their ire. But they are still criticizing him. In my cynical opinion, it's because they have to save face now, and are just going through the motions. Their hearts aren't in it.

Radar wrote:

I'm sorry, but I just think it is so funny. I was laughing my ass off when I heard what he said. It would have been funny regardless of her race. Not only should he not get in any trouble, someone should buy him a beer.

Yeah, it's funny. But it's also still rude to insult small children, even in jest.

I find it interesting that there are assumptions that the child is black when they hear there's a little girl named Isis. Granted, the name is from an Egyptian god and Egyptian means Africa and, for a lot of people, Africa = black people.

On the other hand, people are often thrown for a loop with my name, so it works both ways :dreads:

I find that most of the new age hippie wicca chicks that go around naming their kids after goddesses tend to be white. I believe the current trend in African American names is still for faux-African starting with L' or Kei or Sho.

Oh, and most of the Egyptians I have met do not identify as being "African." It's almost like they feel the rest of the continent they happen to be on is an afterthought.

wolf wrote:

Amazing how the lack of it causes them to lose their ire.

If these organizations are truly about equality, they should support and defend the child no matter what race she may be. They've engaged in their own form of tacit racism by indicating "She's white, so she doesn't count."

Idiots.

*sigh, I know I shouldn't, but...*

But see, if they hadn't said ANYTHING, then all would have been right with the world. They made a mistake, and I see nothing wrong with them backing off because the child isn't white. There are plenty of child advocate groups that can surely come forward (and would have made more sense for them to respond to the comments anyway, IMO). Oh well.

ladysycamore wrote:

*sigh, I know I shouldn't, but...*

But see, if they hadn't said ANYTHING, then all would have been right with the world. They made a mistake, and I see nothing wrong with them backing off because the child isn't white. There are plenty of child advocate groups that can surely come forward (and would have made more sense for them to respond to the comments anyway, IMO). Oh well.

No, actually you should. What is the Cellar for if not that?

But I wanted to say that I interpreted wolf's post (as well as the underlying fact) a little differently. I found it interesting that the NAACP assumed she was black solely on the basis of her name. I thought folks weren't supposed to make assumptions like that - I'll even go out on a limb and say that they would criticise someone for making a similar error.

But I agree that it makes no sense for the NAACP to expend its resources defending a white person (child or grownup). That implies, in theory at least, that at least one black person who needed representation wouldn't get it - a much bigger screw up, imho.

Beestie wrote:

But I wanted to say that I interpreted wolf's post (as well as the underlying fact) a little differently. I found it interesting that the NAACP assumed she was black solely on the basis of her name. I thought folks weren't supposed to make assumptions like that - I'll even go out on a limb and say that they would criticise someone for making a similar error.

Sure, but I can say with all confidence that most black people have never heard of a white girl called Isis.

But I agree that it makes no sense for the NAACP to expend its resources defending a white person (child or grownup). That implies, in theory at least, that at least one black person who needed representation wouldn't get it - a much bigger screw up, imho.

Oh dear :headshake :confused:

Beestie wrote:

But I agree that it makes no sense for the NAACP to expend its resources defending a white person (child or grownup). That implies, in theory at least, that at least one black person who needed representation wouldn't get it - a much bigger screw up, imho.

ladysycamore wrote:

Oh dear :headshake :confused:

Perhaps I can clarify my point. I am saying that a dollar of NAACP money that goes towards defending a white person is a dollar that does not go towards "the Advancement of Colored People" and, therefore, veers from the NAACP's charter. Folks who donate to the NAACP expect the money to be used in a way consistent with the stated mission of the organization. If that does not explain my prior point then please elaborate.

Just for you trivia fans, the name "Isis" ranks around 503 or right in the middle of the 1,000 most popular baby names for 2003 (this, according to the Social Security office - you'd think they'd have better things to do). I did not automatically connect the name with any special ethnic group, by the way. I do think for an adult to make fun of a child for her name is pretty out of line. Had the guy met her as an adult at a cocktail party, it might have been amusing.

My own given name did not even appear in the top 1,000, by the way. Should I feel discriminated against? Maybe I should call the Swiss anti-defamation league.

I can't blame minorities for getting a bit worked up when issues of race surface. I do think that the NAACP and Dymally went overboard here, but that's all they're guilty of, as I see it. They should apologize for it and move on.

It's not the NAACP's game, which is fine, although a National Assoc for the Advancement of All People might not be such a bad idea ...

However the Democratic State Assemblyman seems to have TOTALLY lost his outrage about the statement on finding out that the girl was white.

from the article:
Dymally did not return telephone calls. His office issued a statement Wednesday calling Riordan's remarks to the girl "outrageous and irresponsible," then issued another statement Thursday saying, "To err is human; to forgive is divine."

"Race is not a factor in this issue," Dymally said in Thursday's statement, adding that Riordan had apologized a second time. "It is time for us to move on."

wolf wrote:

It's not the NAACP's game, which is fine, although a National Assoc for the Advancement of All People might not be such a bad idea ...

I don't think it's necessary...whites are already "advanced."

However the Democratic State Assemblyman seems to have TOTALLY lost his outrage about the statement on finding out that the girl was white.

Which is why I think he should apologize...he blew the situation out of proportion and seems rather insensitive about it now.

sycamore wrote:

I don't think it's necessary...whites are already "advanced."

Take that back or I'll come out of my cave and smack you with my club. :biggrin:

Beestie wrote:

Perhaps I can clarify my point. I am saying that a dollar of NAACP money that goes towards defending a white person is a dollar that does not go towards "the Advancement of Colored People" and, therefore, veers from the NAACP's charter. Folks who donate to the NAACP expect the money to be used in a way consistent with the stated mission of the organization. If that does not explain my prior point then please elaborate.

Yes, I knew what you meant.

"The NAACP insures the political, educational, social and economic equality of minority groups and citizens; achieves equality of rights and eliminates race prejudice among the citizens of the United States; removes all barriers of racial discrimination through the democratic processes; seeks to enact and enforce federal, state, and local laws securing civil rights; informs the public of the adverse effects of racial discrimination and seeks its elimination; educates persons as to their constitutional rights and to take all lawful action in furtherance of these principles."

However, I don't think people would have gotten TOO pressed if they had continued on that path (regarding the little girl).