Every now and then Mo’Kelly gets emails arguing that the Tea Party doesn’t have racist undertones. Not often, just every now and then. The argument usually made is that they are fighting “in principle” against the expansion of government and spending…
“Theoretically.”
Oh, ok…then explain these “slices” of Tea Party life…after all of 3 minutes of searching.
___________________________
[Stay tuned…the new mrmokelly.com website is coming to you in 2010. Set your browsers now.]
The Mo’Kelly Report is an entertainment journal with a political slant; published weekly at The Huffington Post and www.eurweb.com. It is meant to inform, infuse and incite meaningful discourse…as well as entertain. The Mo’Kelly Report is syndicated by Blogburst. For more Mo’Kelly, https://mrmokelly.com. Mo’Kelly can be reached at [email protected] and he welcomes all commentary.
65 responses to “Tea Party and Racism…Lovers and Friends”
Most of these people probably don't have a clue about the real meaning of socialism/fascism. All they know is some that "real red blooded American" used them in their talking points against Obama so they must make sense. It's amazing how many brain cells get destroyed by hatred.
Much ado about not very much.
As evidenced by my lack of anything more to say about it.
Here's one, took all of ten seconds to find:
http://londonist.com/attachments/London_Lindsey/r…
http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_february_16_20…
I think I'll have to stop reading your blog before I go to bed. Going to bed mad enough to spit nails does not bode well for those I may encounter first thing the next day!!!SMH
http://www.greatdreams.com/political/bush-protest…
I'll stop there.
Some of this, in other words, goes with the territory, especially in these polarized times.
Some is random stupidity.
Some is guess what? All the racists aren't dead yet.
Mo, please don't try to convince your highly educated readership that you have proved that Tea Partier = Dixiecrat.
Not even within homing distance.
So in your mind, Mo, if Obama is called names, the name-callers are racist.
Therefore, if you criticize Obama, you are a racist.
Or is it that you have to just call him a Socialist, compare him to Hitler, or say he's overtaxing us….you're a racist.
And that since a few idiots have racist signs, the entire movement is racist.
You've done much better than this, Mo.
No, Jack…we've had these discussions long enough I would hope that you don't sell my logic THAT short.
"So in your mind, Mo, if Obama is called names, the name-callers are racist."
No…but I will say this and Dwane did a very good job of constructing my argument without having to do so myself. #1, if you have to criticize the president on the level of his ethnicity or to Dwane's point "race-related" points, then yes, the argument can readily be made in regards to racism.
"Go back to Kenya" is the virtually the same as the "Go back to Africa." See the connection?
#2, To demonize the president with images of Hitler speaks to a specific and pointed level of hatred, almost ironic given the true racist Hitler was in the grandest of ways. Racism and hatred are inextricably linked. They are lovers and friends.
#3, This conversation if anything is about the historical use of "code." One doesn't directly need to reference the person's race for it to be about race at its root. The attacks on the legitimacy of Barack Obama's presidency (Birthers) or his supposed Islamic religion are undeniably connected to his race. Do not pigeonhole this discussion into something only about his skin or paternal lineage. When you do not accept the legitimacy of the election, then it is very easy to justify anything and everything afterward and none of it is disrespectful. It's that same type of thinking which led to Africans/African-Americans being deemed 3/5 of a man in the constitution. As long as they're considered "property" there is no discussion to be had about rights or freedom. As long as you deny the authenticity of Obama as either an American or Christian, then there is no discussion to be had about his policies. He is the devil.
And no, I wouldn't say the entire movement is racist…that's your assumption Jack. And you too have done much better. I am saying that IF the Tea Party is NOT racist, it does nothing to discourage, distance or deny its openly racist members…who number FAR MORE than "a few idiots" to use your term. We both know it isn't "a few idiots." I casually searched for all of 3 minutes to do this post. If you like I would do even more homework and find hundreds and hundreds more. This is about complicity.
In hockey, not everyone joins in the fights between players. The refs stand to the side as to the other players. But fights are "allowed" and the league is "complicit" in allowing fighting to exist. Yes, they "penalize" it and won't go on record "condoning" fighting, but in the end…the moment the league wishes to end the association of fighting and the NHL, it's done.
In other words, the moment the Tea Party wishes to end its association with extremism and racism…it's done. Let's turn this on its head. The moment Islam wishes to end its association with extremism…it's done. The same extremism that these Tea Party members are using to defile Obama. The Tea Party/Republican Party can't have it both ways. For almost 40 years the U.S. has never condemned an act of Israel until recently. It's related to why we're so hated. We're seen as complicit in everything Israel does. Same applies here.
The bottom line is that this movement is not about the supposed fiscal irresponsibility of government. If it were, the Tea Party would have been active during the Bush administration. It wasn't. It's not about socialism versus capitalism because if it were, they'd know that this country is no where near becoming a socialist state. Not even close. Not only that, if they were so anti-socialism, they'd know that it would be the end of public education, the post office and other facets of life they've taken for granted for all of their lives.
Like I said…ignorance.
But if this were about principle, then there would be no need for the "Nigger" chants. And in fact, Tea Party leadership would do EVERYTHING in its power to distance themselves from the supposed "fringe" element of the Tea Party conducting them. I've got news for you, the Tea Party IS THE FRINGE element of the Republican Party, and therefore they can't distance themselves from themselves.
I have NO problem with people calling Obama a "socialist"…it's ignorant and indicative of a lack of understanding of the word, its meaning and historical impact…but I have no problem with it. For you to put Obama on the same sign as a Russian dictator is hilarious to me. The bill passed through two houses of Congress before it got to Obama's desk. And they were bills mostly created by the two houses of Congress, not Obama. That's ignorance on their part.
But when you start including Hitler (which has its own racial overtones) and using swastikas and saying go back to Kenya…that's going back to 3/5 and disrespecting the legitimacy of his election.
And please keep in mind that I absolutely concur that Obama is the target of race-based hatred.
And please keep in mind that I absolutely concur that we are not living in "post-racial" times.
However, please also keep in mind that many of your black friends ask you "When can we let some of this go?"
And please keep in mind that the youth of this nation seem to have better things to do than get caught up in racist issues. These are primarily older adults who "can't let go."
In other words: Perspective.
Walt, I have a sixteen year old who we've talked about is politically conscious. He sees the images of Obama as a monkey, or monkey dolls with Obama t-shirts on. He sees the same images that we both know were part of the Warner Bros. cartoons of the 40's aand 50's. Those cartoons scarred the children of that era. Even though they were made for movie theatres where their were primarily adult audiences, they made their way to television "unedited" in TVs infancy. He may laugh at the spelling of Niggar, but he is still infuriated that something that was said to denigrate his great, great grandfather is being used to denigrate his president. If my sons are seeing the same images and hearing the same names now, why would I not believe they could be equally scarring. I can't speak for Morris, but I would assume he would say he'd let it go after it stops. No Black person I know is upset over anything race related where the effects are not experienced today (and if anyone brings up slavery, beware… I already have my response ready). No one says that the Tea Party represents all Conservatives, or all southerners, or all anything. What is believed is that the groups the Tea Party claim to be affiliated with allow them to go unchecked. I know your heart, and there isn't a racist bone in your body. If you and ten other White men were in a room with me and two started beating on me because I was Black, I would know they are racist. As for the other ten, I would make my assumptions about them based on what they did in reaction to the beating (ie., does anyone come to my aid). As MLK said, I am not so much discouraged by the words of my enemies, as by the silence of my friends. If Conservatives, southerners, Tea Partyers, etc. don't openly distance themselves from those who dilute their message through racist antics, you can't fault Morris for pointing out the proximaty between them.
"So in your mind, Mo, if Obama is called names, the name-callers are racist. Therefore, if you criticize Obama, you are a racist."
Mr. Von, you made that leap on your own. Morris had a loooooooong blog a weak or two ago talking about the importance of critiquing Obama. So that can't be what he means. Let me offer a variation to your assertion, and Morris will correct me if I'm wrong:
"If Obama is called racist names, the name callers are racist. Therefore if you criticize Obama for race-based reasons, you're a racist."
That is more accurate, it's also logical, and it's the actual issue.
As for your other assertion, that being the belief that "since a few idiots have racist signs, the entire movement is racist", its an oversimplification of the issue. If you are trying to make a valid point, and you let an idiot try to explain your point for you, your point will start to sound like idiocy. The non-racists are standing there and allowing the racists to distort their point so that it has racist elements and not doing anything about it. Criminal negligence is different from murder in the courts, but its the same to the dead victim. If you allow racism to go on in your presence, you will be seen as an enabler of racism. It may not be fair, but it is logical.
Dwayne,
THIS is why I wish you would write more.
I am slack-jawed and speechless at your comment, so deep and intriguing did I find it.
I have been planning a post on my own ignorance of actual modern day racism in my country, but now I also owe you a reflective response in this thread, which I will set about delivering promptly.
This is what dawned on me a couple of days ago:
I am 50. Ten years older than me is 60. If you are 60 or older, it is entirely possible that you were denied equal access to a PUBLIC ACCOMODATION due solely to your skin color.
In other words, for me, that's RECENT. That stuff happened to people NOT MUCH OLDER THAN ME.
And if it took that long for government to "catch on" that all men and women truly are created equal, then it stands to reason that individuals and social groups might still possess some of those attitudes.
Whew.
Now, Morris wrote 3 thousand words to Jack but none to me. Maybe he'll get to me at some point. I stand by my assertion that the racist elements of the Tea Party are being overblown, and in fact any reference to race is currently being overblown.
We are running a serious risk in this country of not being able to have an actual conversation.
Morris tosses around the term "FAR MORE" as though its emphasis is de facto proof.
It is not.
And sometimes the level of our rage is disproportionate to the level of the offense.
Sometimes.
Walt, I'll get to you eventually! 🙂
Dwayne, thank you for stating what should have been obvious. It is still puzzling why such contortions are being made to defend, overlook or by-pass the content and intent of the message advanced by the "point-men" of this movement. If "red meat" is not condoned and promoted, TELL them to sit down and shut up: you don't speak for me and you don't speak for this coalition.
We have seen what resulted during WWII from stereotyping Japanese-Americans, we saw what happened in Germany by stereotyping Jewish Germans, we know what WE have endured with the stereotyping and hate/race-baiting of African-Americans.
Of those who profess to be sympathetic to the hardships endured by intolerance and racism (yes RACISM), it is a curious notion that the VICTIMS need to "let some of this go" in the middle of the very act of aggressive racist policies.
(Those K-9; you need to let them go. Waterhoses; let it go. Rosewood, Selma, Birmingham; let it go. Incarceration disparities, education inequities, lack of employment opportunities, police shooting anomalies; for God's sake, just let it go! GET OVER IT!!!)
What parts of "Never Again" and "He who forgets the past is condemned to relive it" don't seem to register? The youth of this nation "seem to have better things to do"???(Facebook, Twitter, Wii)??? We have not instilled in them the gravity of the situation: "That which is too easily won is too lightly regarded".
We are not post-racial; this is not post-regard.
Incidentally, Walt, thanks for being the Voice of the Black Friends.
p.s. Walt: I AM 60!!!!
Dwayne,
My own five children range in age from 19 to 11. Of course they are all caucasion, but many of their friends are not. Many, in fact, are mixed race or some specific non-white ethnicity. Not so many latino in my area, but plenty of African-American. There are mixed race couples on either side of the house I live in.
So in other words, the very definition of "integrated."
I see the same things you see. I am not incapable of blaming whitey for his transgressions. I know you know that, too.
Bob Dylan wrote a song once called "Talking John Birch Society Blues", a comic statement about the country's obsession with "finding" communists. He talks about looking under rocks and bushes, determined to find him a commie. The song is a hoot, but more importantly it reminds us to be "on the lookout" for extremism in all its forms.
We just got done spending eight years answering extremism with extremism. Where did it get us?
As for scarring. That sword cuts both ways. When Grandpa sits you on his knee when you're 11 and tells you the story of how he was called "monkey" and worse by the children in his neighborhood, what happens when you go to school and your FRIEND, in complete ignorance of the social ramifications, then calls you a monkey? Do you laugh with her and call her a hyena? Do you calmly explain to her the sensitive nature of the comment? Or do you scream "RACISM!" and get her suspended for two days?
I'll leave it to you to identify the white friend.
My children are not scarred by racism, and as far as I know, their friends aren't either. Are there racists in their age group? I suspect there are. But in their social group? I suspect not, because such behavior would seem ludicrous in a group of people of every conceivable race. The force of integration is that people get used to each other. Brown v. Board of Ed understood that key principle.
But what purpose does it serve to attempt to paint with a broad brush every member of a certain group? And, as is his occasional specialty, Morris tries to have it both ways, at once saying that he does not condemn an entire movement for the actions of a few, then doing exactly that in more sly ways, leading his readership to draw the intended conclusion.
Hey, that's show biz.
I will agree that it's important to have those individual actions condemned, lest they taint an entire movement. And as Morris knows, I do distinguish between war spending and other spending, as the Tea Partiers do. You can be a fiscal conservative and also believe in running a deficit to fund a war. The fact that Morris and I both believe it was the wrong war does not make Tea Partiers racist. It makes them, primarily, conservative.
"I’ve got news for you, the Tea Party IS THE FRINGE element of the Republican Party, and therefore they can’t distance themselves from themselves."
Really? How interesting. Because according to Rasmussen, "On major issues, 48% of voters say that the average Tea Party member is closer to their views than President Barack Obama. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 44% hold the opposite view and believe the president’s views are closer to their own."
Most telling is that, "Among voters not affiliated with either major political party, 50% say they’re closer to the Tea Party".
Doesn't sound like fringe elements to me.
As for "The bottom line is that this movement is not about the supposed fiscal irresponsibility of government. If it were, the Tea Party would have been active during the Bush administration. It wasn’t. "
That's a logical fallacy, and I think a rather sloppy one. Do I really need to point out why?
"It’s not about socialism versus capitalism because if it were, they’d know that this country is no where near becoming a socialist state. Not even close."
Again, a logical fallacy. In this case, it isn't a question of what a truly objective person might see, Mo. It's a question of what many people FEEL about the expanding role of government under Obama and the re-distribution of wealth that even Walt has acknowledged.
Redistribution of wealth is a key and I mean KEY focal point of the Obama presidency.
And necessary for the health of the nation and of capitalism specifically.
Jack, what is the margin of error on the Rasmussen poll? Stating that on "major issues" the majority (48%) of respondents say the "adverage" Tea Party member's views are closer to their own than that of the President makes me wonder: 1) what "major issues" where advanced and how were these questions worded? 2) What was the criteria used to determine the "adverage" Tea Party member? 3) What demographic was determined to select the respondents?
Jack, you conclude with the acknowledgement that objectivity has no gravity in this debate; that visceral determinations rule the day. You may very well have just defined the entire movement, and why the "attack dogs" have not been kept at bay.
"Redistribution of wealth is a key and I mean KEY focal point of the Obama presidency.
And necessary for the health of the nation and of capitalism specifically."
Walt, I could not agree with you more. The Great Depression was the result of concentration of wealth and lack of distribution. Monetary access is the lubrication to the machine that is the US economy. If there is no incentive to distribute profitably, the truely wealthy sesquester the cash flow awaiting profitable opportunities to reenter the marketplace. The New Deal presented such an opportunity and proved to bring about the resurgence of the US economy.
My concern is that those pictured probably have reproduced.
The thought of more little ones just like them is frightening!
There's freedom of expression, but is it necessary for them to let it ALL HANG OUT?
Roger, were you ever denied a public accommodation based on your skin color, or was anyone in your family?
Walt, I grew up in Chicago in 1950. Yes, Yes, and YES!
p.s. Walt, no offense, but the ducks are usually the only one in the shooting gallery that realize they are being shot AT!!!
Roger, could you describe any such experiences?
And yes, of course I am confessing to a huge hole in my awareness.
Damn this conversation is rich, but I'm SO busy at the job. I will have to jump back in later, but this is fantastic on all sides. Everybody keep bringing the A GAME!
And Jack…you do concede that Rasmussen is a conservative pollster…right? He's not exactly Frank Newport of Gallup.
Mo, we can jack off all day long about who's polls are correct and why. I can only speak to Rasmussen's methodology from a statistical standpoint, based on a lifetime experienced with statistics. His methodology is sound. If you want to claim partisan bias, it seems irrelevant if the methodology passes, which it does.
However, Gallup seems to agree:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/Tea-Partiers-Fa…
"…age, educational background, employment status, and race — Tea Partiers are quite representative of the public at large"
Roger — all the information you seek is available at the website.
Walt, I can recall many times that we were covertly and overtly discriminated against. My mother was a federal employee in Chicago, and I don't even allow my memory to delve into recollections from her travails.
I will, rather, share with you two incidents, one first person, of what sitting on the firing line is like.
The first was my older brother, now aged 67. He, like me, grew up in a bohemian Hyde Park adjacent to the University of Chicago. He, like I, had friends of many races and ethnicities. As a teen, he accompanied a group of his caucasian friends into a diner where the waitress patently ignored him.
After taking everyone else's order save for my brother's, he offered, "I'll have the steak and potatoes…" to which she retorted, "We don't serve Negroes here!" Quick as a whip, he replies, "That's alright. I didn't want to order a Negro; I wanted a steak" and looked benignly at the speechless waitress as his friends cracked up. He then said, "Don't worry, I can pay for it", producing the cost of the menu item. "I can't take that money", she said venomously, "it's TAINTED!" To which my brother rejoined, "That right. T'aint yours till you bring me a steak". She left in a huff, and they decided to dine elsewhere.
Being the youngest of my brothers, I was somewhat insulated by proximity. To get to me, you had to go through my three older brothers.
Our associates and friends were across the entire spectrum: Hoselitz, Takahashi, Ming, Schloss, Knaus, Chan, Sarreno and slew of names ending in -ski that rivaled the Jones, Smiths and Johnsons.
Chicago in 1960 was a very segregated city, each ethnicity having its own community; one where Italians lived, one where Polish lived, one where Irish lived, one where Blacks lived and so on. Tolerance was not an accepted convention, especially on someone else's turf. But Hyde Park was Chicago's melting pot.
There had been an ugly incident in Chicago where a young black man had been beaten to death by a white group of teens with a baseball bat. That had occurred on Chicago's South West Side, as I recall, the area that was home to the Mayor of Chicago, Richard J. Daley.
Riverview, however, was also located somewhere North West of that vicinity. Riverview was Chicago's Coney Island and Disneyland all wrapped up in one. It was every young child's dream destination. Graduations, summer vacations, wedding and honeymoons were hosted at Riverview, featuring the Fireball: a semi-lethal wooden roller coaster that plummeted at ninty miles an hour into a pitch black tunnel whose entrance promised to decapitate you. How could a kid help but love that?
One fine summer day, with out thought or reason, as only a ten year old boy could, I grabbed my bike and decided that I would cycle from my home in Hyde Park to Riverview. I didn't have any money to get in, wasn't even planning to; I just wanted to be near that magical place.
For those of you who don't know (and that would have included my ten year old avatar), Chicago is sixty square miles, a distance that I had not taken into account when I began my trek.
Soon, I was leg weary but diligently determined to see the lights of Riverview. I definitely knew that I was no longer in my neighborhood, as everything had a lustre of newness that was foreign to a city born, inter-urban child. Apartment buildings did not seem so worn or delapidated. Lawns were green and not spotty or glass spewn. Stores were clean and decorative. I peddled on, absorbing all of this collectively.
I saw a young caucasian boy, approximately my same age approaching a corner drugstore. As he caught my eye, he yelled out, "NIGGER!"
I was aghast, I was flabbergasted that this young contemporary of mine had used this vile, antiquated term that, according to my heretofore life experiences and the professions of those whose taught in my neighborhood, was no longer
acceptable.
I came to a smoking, skidding halt and the young boy took off running into the drugstore. I pursued him with righteous indignation. Laser focused on confronting him and demanding an apology for what he said. I knew that if the adults in the store knew of his behavior, he would be reprimanded as I would have been in my neighborhood.
Locating the boy in the drugstore soda fountain area, I asked him why he had said this to me? I had done nothing to him and….and that's when I noticed. "Our drugstores don't have a little soda fountain area, with wrought iron tables and chairs. In fact, they don't have soda fountains."
I took stock of my surroundings as I scanned the hard and unrelenting faces of the adults around me. I certainly was not going to find consolation or empathy here. Their faces said that they were one breath away from joining the boy in hurling epithets. I backed toward the door, continuing to admonish the boy's behavior, but with a little less bravado than I had upon my entrance.
I never saw Riverview that day.
And now I understand that the root of "indignation" is "indignity."
Thanks, Roger.
Roger,
The story you shared here on Mo's blog is very similar to a story that a man who is a dear and special friend of mine shared with me about his experience growing up in Chicago in the 1960's.
My friend is a 57 years old Black man and his story involved him and a childhood friend being chased from the Lake shore area near the 'Museum of Science and Industry' by a mob of angry white men and women.
And what crime or offense had this young man {he was in his early teens at the time} and his friend committed that would deserve being set upon by a mob fueled by racist anger? They had dared to come to the beach area to look out onto the water.
The fact that my friend told me this story without a hint of malice, lingering anger or bitterness, told me so much about his character as a man.
Brenda, your friend is absolutely correct. That beach area was located near an all white country club and golf course situated in Jackson Park on the south side of Chicago, ironically, the same neighborhood as Hyde Park high school which I attended.
Those kind of occurrences were commonplace during the era. It was an accepted practice because people who 'silently' objected ceded to the vocal instigations of those whose inflammatory rhetoric egged on the actions that ultimately became mob rule: the Tea Partiers of their day.
This is the reason why I warn about not forgetting the past, and why the reprehensible behavior tolerated by Right Wing extremists is tantamount to acquiescence by those who will not repudiate them.
Remember, the families that 'only' came to 'picnic' during a lynching were complicit in the actions of the mob.
Several things:
1. Territoriality is not de facto racism. They might not care that you're black as much as they care that you don't belong in their neighborhood. Whites chase whites, blacks chase blacks.
2. As I mentioned in another recent post here, it is not correct to call a person "complicit" in a behavior that they witness and do not object to in a vocal way. I get where you're coming from, and it would be a perfect world if all people stood up together and voiced outrage over an injustice which they witness. But the truth is more complex, isn't it? Would you stand up to an angry mob, knowing you will likely get your head kicked in? Or would you attempt to become invisible and hope the mob ignores you? Sure, you could volunteer for a potentially fatal beat-down, but are you somehow "complicit" in the mob's behavior if you don't? That answer has to be "No."
3. I see no evidence of "mob rule" or any other sort of expression of lawlessness from Tea Partiers. What we know so far is that they are angry, the President is a target of that anger, and some of them invoke race in expressing that anger.
I find all this stuff interesting too. Many topics of importance, but we need to retain focus. So I repeat:
"If you are trying to make a valid point, and you let an idiot try to explain your point for you, your point will start to sound like idiocy."
The veiwpoint expressed by the Tea Party is being refined, and may ultimate be defined, by those who hold up illiterate racist signs. That is not anyone else's fault or responsibility but the LEADERSHIP of the Tea Party. I understand the concept of not wanting your head bashed in by not jumping into a mob beating me to death. The last thing I would want is for a friend to die trying to save me… especially if I still die. To go back to Morris' point about hockey fights, its not the referee's job to stop a fight between two angry men with sticks, helmets and shoulder pads, of which he has none. It is the OWNERS,, GERNEAL MANAGERS', AND COMMISSIONER'S, responsibility. They are the ones who are green-lighting the behavior. If it were discouraged at the top by fines and being cut from the teams, it would stop. The leadership sets the policy. In a groupthink (as opposed to mob rule) situation, people are not complicit as much as they are carrying out the norms.
***And that is the imgage problem with the Tea Party movement. Racist imagery and words are accepted as a norm.***
What high level political advocate of the Tea Party movement has come out and said that the behavior is unacceptable. None that I have heard. So I don't fault some of the less literate, less intelligent, yet highly visible and vocal participants in the rallies from doing something that others are doing, and no one ever said is wrong. And I don't fault those who are standing there watching who would never do the same thing, but respect the other individuals' right to protest in their own way as long as its acceptable TO THE LEADERSHIP.
If the Pope says that birth control is now mandatory for couples with more than three children, I am buying stock in every condom company before the end of the day. Whether every individual agrees with them or not, the leadership sets the standard for the behavior of the people under their charge. The Leadership of the Tea Party, more specifically those in the media and in Congress who site their actions as traditional American values and forms of protest, are responsible for unchecked behaviors and the distortion of the message. Yes, protest is purely American. I support their right. Yes, they have many things they point to that are "traditional American values" on their platform. That's fine too. But what is happening, and being ignored, is the fact that there are racist elements that are being tied into what should be a valid protest movement, and the leaders of the movement are accepting of it. It is the same thing as a pork barrel project being tied into a legitimate project for the public good. When the budget passes both pass… period. Even though one may have nothing to do with the other, they are tied together forever in the minds of those who did not want the pork barrel project. The good project is tainted… or dare I say painted… with the same broad brush. You can't say the leadership didn't know that would happen, they just made the decision that the value of getting what they wanted from the combination outweighed the negative aspects of how a certain group of people would feel afterward. And that, if I can be so presumptuous to speak for all those who feel disrespected by them, is what is happening with the Tea Party movement in the eyes of the Black Community.
Oh, and Walt my brother. My father-in-law went on a tirage in my kichen one time about "Whitey". It went something like, "thats the problem with Black people. Always waiting for Whitey to do something for you, for Whitey to help you, for Whitey to tell you they like you. Just face it, Whitey don't like you, Whitey ain't gonna do nothing for you, Whitey don't can't help you… he can't do nothin' for himself… F— Whitey!!!! Now, my father-in-law is a very White, very blonde haired, very green-eyed man. My mother in law is his second Black wife. All his brothers married Black women. He is so scarred by the racism that he heard from his father growing up, and what he and his brothers experienced from White people during the Sixties, that he only hangs around his wife's family and only has Black friends. There is no discounting the effects of racism, who will be effected, or how they will be affected. I'm happy for your children and your friends. My son is one of the Few Black males in the IB classes at his school, and they all know he is gifted. Their response when he got a ***perfect*** score on the state English exam, "you're pretty smart for a Black kid!" I'm not going to ask my son to get over it. I'm going to prepare him for more of it, because I know it's coming. And I'll tell him in my own way so my Father-in-law won't tell him in his.
Thank you again Roger for validating portions of my friend's story. And I agree with you wholeheartedly about the inherent dangers of remaining silent in the face of a growing problem that history has shown us only leads to senseless violence and death.
@ Walt, I'm sorry I don't have the time to get into a back and forth discussion with you, but how can anyone lay territorial claim to a public beach? This wasn't someone home, or backyard or a beach on a private island. This was a public foreshore and beach owned by the city of Chicago. There may have been a private white only club nearby the beach, but they didn't have any claim to any area that was beyond the borders of their club walls. So they had no right, legal or otherwise in telling or attacking someone for wanting to come to the beach.
And furthermore, who has the right to say that someone doesn't "belong" in a particular neighborhood? If a person has the money and resources to purchase a home/flat/plot of land/garage space somewhere, then what right does anyone else have to tell them that they can't live there or they don't "belong" there?
And as for your other two points, I'm not going to bother to debate semantics of "complicit behavior". We all see and process things differently and I'll leave at that.
Dwayne, you wrote:
"
Their response when he got a ***perfect*** score on the state English exam, “you’re pretty smart for a Black kid!”
"
Who said that? How many people? Kids, adults?
Brenda,
I have no reason to doubt the issue in the beach chase was race. My broader point was that there are all sorts of reasons people chase each other, and that for example whites do chase whites and blacks do chase blacks.
If you know my style at all, I seek to avoid lumping many things together as though they are all the same.
My second and third points were pretty air-tight, so it makes sense that you won't try to refute them.
🙂
And as this narrative comes into focus, it seems pretty clear that the biggest issue in here is that people are not standing up and loudly repudiating racist expressions at tea Party gatherings.
I'd point out that the movement insists that it has no leader, and has no party affiliation.
So, specifically, naming names here: Who should be coming out against these tendencies?
Other than the Left, which has convinced itself that Tea Party = Dixiecrat.
And swept up Morris along with them.
Walt,
Leave the humor to the experts. Please. LoL!
I have experienced racism and prejudices on so many levels it was a shame. I grew up in Inner city chicago near 63rd and Western Avenue. The neighborhood was great, but the school I had to walk to was decrepit. The only faces we saw were our own. we did not even know how to exist with other races, etc. When I moved to WI, the whites and blacks here were so integrated. The proms shows how integrated things really are in the high schools. I ended up being proud of my surroundings in high school. The kids of today don't even know much about their histories, let alone family histories. My husband and I make sure we teach our four children about our backgrounds and what we experienced as kids. Just to live it is one thing, to forget it happened is another thing altogether. I never want to forget where we have come from, it makes where we are going that much sweeter. Right now I work full-time, parent my kids, attend a private college (where I am the only African American woman in my major-Accounting) and we live a good life. I will still never forget the ways in which racism reared its ugly head in my life which shapes the decisions that I make today.
Walt, it was the kids in his school. Predominantly the males, who often debate him on different issues. But he is extremely articulate (and occasionally condescending), and he considers himself the new Stephen Colbert in his ability to get people to kill their own arguments.
My reason for pointing that out (other than fatherly bragging) was to show that my (our) generation is continually asked to "get over it", while the generation behind us is continually dealing with the next wave of "it". Of course my son has friends of all races… if he didn't, he would be really lonely in that school. Even at his age he is as bothered by both White haters who say Jungle Boy or Darky, as he is by his White friends who dismiss it with "don't worry about it man, he's just a jerk". He thinks, "don't say something to me, say something to him!" Don't worry, I keep him built up and focused, but I know not every kid has someone to do that. Some kids who get beat down by racism are the children of people who were beaten down by racism… those are the kids I worry about.
Dwayne,
And now we have a chance to compare perspectives, because my son might be one of the friends of your son telling him to “ignore that jerk.”
I have to say that it sounds like pretty good advice to me.
And this goes back to some of our earliest discussions, where we agreed that there will always be random jerks.
Just last night I was at a bar shooting pool, and on the next table a guy made a slop shot that counted based on the bar rules, and he said “Ah, I don’t want credit for no nigger ball!”
And I have heard that reference to “nigger pool” before in that same bar.
I’ll give you one guess as to what I said to that man. I’m sure you’ll nail it.
Let’s see: bar, drunk, pool cue, obviously comfortable uttering that phrase…a quick scan around the bar, yup, no blacks in here tonight (or most any night).
I’m in a redneck bar. I guess I’d better swim with the tide.
In fact, if he had said it to me I might have simply smiled and nodded. And if a black guy had been in the bar (which does occasionally happen) he might have done the same.
It seems to me that we are approaching an unreasonable standard. Let me ask anybody in this thread: Do you always speak out when a white person speaks in a derogatory way towards blacks, or says “nigger” in one context or another?
Or do you, sometimes, simply let the moment pass so it won’t turn into something even bigger and less manageable?
As parents, do you want your kids to confront every kid with a bad attitude, or would you prefer that your children simply learn who to stay away from?
I am perfectly happy to have this conversation; all I ask is that we all keep both feet on the ground while we do.
I wonder what Dr. King would advise?
Walt, what Dr. King would advise has already been proffered to you by Dwayne: “I am not so much discouraged by the words of my enemies, as by the silence of my friends”….FRIEND!
We acclimate to surrounding that support us and associates that reflect us: soul search a little and ask why you frequent a red neck bar where you feel you are beholden to smile and nod at a lout who does not share your sensibilities (nor intellect)about appropriate and inappropriate social conduct.
YOU put yourself in that shared environment, as Tea Partiers have chose to to the same.
Walt….you need an UPGRADE!
Roger,
Quite simple: He is an outlier. Most everybody in that place is nice and friendly, they make great wings and the pool tables are new.
And they frequently have great bands on the weekend.
You do know I’ve been to black hangouts and been called names, don’t you?
I mean, for real.
And as for WWDKA, I was being serious and I was mindful of Dwayne’s quote.
Would Dr. King ask us to volunteer for a beating? I don’t think he would.
Also, I don’t want to seem to be making light or comparing experiences. I am grateful to be told these stories, as it definitely gets me closer to understanding histories and attitudes.
The way forward is, at least to me, the part that attracts me, and at this moment the view of that is murky at best.
As Don Henley nailed it long ago, “The more I know, the less I understand…”
Walt, what you said is all we can ask… and I was looking forward to you saying it because I knew you would. Almost every movement from abolition until now had "good White folks" in it. Folks who were willing to band together with or without Blacks ('cause during abolition there weren't always enough of us who were free to band with) to fight for what was right for people who didn't look like them.
And that is the point that I have been trying to make about the Tea Party. There is not effort in the movement to band together to keep the message the message. There is no effort from the leadership or the masses to clean up the people who dilute the message. If someone throws a beer at a player at a Yankee game (I was there when then called Dave Winfield N- and threw a beer at him), everyone in the area will point at the guy until security comes… and management made sure security came. They all worked collectively to make sure that people knew that's not what the Yankees stood for. That's what Black people want to see from the Tea Party… and from the Conservative movement in general.
We don't HAVE to be accepted by any party, we just don't want it said that we're being petty or overly sensitive or playing the race card when we are openly rejected but not openly supported by a party. They, as a group, show no reason to (as Morris would say) give them the benefit of the doubt. Most of them are neutral, some are openly anti-Black, none are openly pro-Black. Very few can be called racist, but none can be called supportive. It really is a simple analysis when you look at it that way.
For you my brother, I have been shot at several times and shot once for being Black by White kids (life on L.I. circa 1980… always exciting). But I have still jumped in to stop Black kids from beating up a White kid on several occasions. We do what we're supposed to do when we can. We when can't we just avoid those situations. That's what I teach my sons, and that's whay I do with the Tea Party.
Dwayne,
Something else to consider. Blacks can gather together to celebrate their blackness, and they are called brothers and sisters. White folks get together to celebrate their whiteness and they are called klansmen.
So "white guilt" is a multi-layered fabric.
I feel my share but I do draw the line. I am responsible for setting a tone of what's acceptable and what is not. That's why it is very complicated to know what to do, and when. There are more than one priority going on at such times.
And so I am conflicted in every conceivable way about this. I am most virulently opposed to labeling the Tea Party movement "racist", or even elements within it. There are other, narrower and more plausible explanations for much of what we see and hear.
We cannot fight the enemy without first identifying the enemy. One clear enemy is partisan politics, which teaches people to hate each other. That's a bad start toward understanding.
So, we the educated few must insist on having our facts in line before being asked to draw a conclusion, and we must insist on considering all options and all consequences of those options, short and long term.
It takes work.
And I believe that many of us are committed to doing that work, but we are up against a lot of opposition. All around us people insist that we take sides and harden divisions.
So let's go to the next Tea Party rally near us and find out for ourselves what attitudes are on display. Perhaps even engage in a conversation or two.
And begin to plot the way forward.
Walt, I know how you felt being picked on for being White in a Black environment. But you were there by choice, and chose to ignore what was random and decided to rise above the stupidity.
There in lies the difference in our shared experiences: Blacks have been a 'captive' audience to acts of stupidity that have not been random, but rather, institutional. They did not have the option of walking away from it, back to their protected environment.
I applaud your heart and humanitarian compassion for not allowing the few to impugn the reputation and consideration of the many. And that is the basis of the contentions of those posters here that say the leadership of the Tea Party MUST take a vocal stand AGAINST those that rail derogatorily and demean the validity of the message of the movement by their unacceptable actions.
Last night my AME (African Methodist Espiscopal) church (majorly Black) rehearsal was visited by a busload of teenagers, teachers and chaperones (all but one White) from Idaho. They came to experience and share music, in a cultural exchange, with our teen gospel choral group.
I was equally proud of both our Gospel Messengers youth choir and the visiting youth choir as they effusively put each other at ease in their appreciation of the other's contribution and share desire to engage in this experience. Friendships were forged, because emnity was not.
"All I am saying is give peace a chance"
Roger, you have a knack (as does Dwayne) for bringing sensitive issues home without malice.
Quite an art.
Walt, when White people get together to celebrate their Whiteness, that's America. When Black people get together to celebrate their Blackness that's America too, but too often it is considered gang activity. We all have our negative connotations. Also, when Black people get together to celebrate their Blackness, it is generally apolitical… the opposite purpose for the Tea Party gathering.
I don't believe in fostering White guilt, because my White god-children will have to bear that guilt one day. But you know I'm about understanding and empathy. You don't even have to agree, just understand and accept that my feelings are valid for my situation. I want someone in the Tea Party to show me I'm welcome in their house before I show up at the door. I don't want to be the one to end up on youtube as an example of why not to go. That would be like me confronting the guy at your pool hall and engaging him in dialogue without him openning the door…
I'll work with you with youth, with the elderly, to improve social programming and political access. I'll work with you on anything because you have shown the willingness BEFORE I EVEN MET YOU. I expect no less from the Tea Party than I received from you… should I?
Dwayne,
I asked the other day: Who should be taking this responsibility? The Tea Party says it has no leaders.
I asked: Who specifically should be speaking out?
Other than the Left, which as I observed has already passed judgment.
And yes I confess that "civil rights" has been on my radar since I was ten years old and discovered that my birthday was the same as Dr. King's.
“Would Dr. King ask us to volunteer for a beating?”
Yes. Dr. King asked me to participate in non-violent resistence, knowing that hoses and dogs, billie clubs and worst were to be implemented.
Did he tell me when I showed up to march before vehemently displayed hatred, “Stay at home; don’t do anything that may endanger you” (even though in the course of our action, it may change the world)? NO!
Speak up! If not you, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
Roger,
I mean in an isolated situation, not an organized march or demonstration.
Just you, maybe one or two others, versus an angry or poptentially violent mob.
As I said, I completely get where you’re coming from.
There is also the practical side that your family wants you to come home tonight.
Alive.
In one piece.
Walt to "Who specifically should be speaking out?" Down here in the Carolinas there are a bunch of politicians who are jumping on the bandwagon. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota has embraced them. Pat Brady of Illinois has too.
The Tea Party has no "leaders", but it has a heirarchy. It has regional and local "organizers". It has political representatives from city to senate who have aligned themselves with the movement. You mentioned MLK. He was not the leader of the civil rights movement, he was the "spokesperson". But his position made him the focus of attention. They have leadership, regardless what they say. What they don't have the a individual spokesperson. But they do coordinate their activities and philosophy withing states, and between states. I'm sorry, but somebody has to be in charge of something for times, dates, places, literature, agendas, and speakers to be where they want them to be when they want them to be there.
I'm not worried about the left in this instance, but about the reaction of Black people to the actions of the Tea Party. I've been lied to by all parties, so I judge who's "actions" speak for them. So now that I've covered who should be speaking out, I still ask the question, what has the tea party or the conservative movement done or said that would give Black American the impression that our issues and presence are respected to the point that we should align with them? I'm not talking about the political left, I'm talking about Black folks. What have they done or said.
For me it is very simple. Republicans have made it very clear that they "embrace" the Tea Party. Meaning, they support their efforts in general and principle. That to me says that they (Republican leadership) should either speak out against the idiocy within the Tea Party or rightfully be connected to it.
Republican leadership has for years held Islam to this same expectation, so it shouldn't be unfair to apply it in the same manner here.
Walt, that situation shows the effect of groupthink as opposed to mob rule. One person in the bar showed disrespect to a group of people that many in the bar inevitably have good relations with. But since somebody didn’t say something, nobody said anything, because no one knew what side anyone else was on. Understandable. What would have also been obvious if a Black person was walking by the bar is that no one stood up for the collective “him”.
I wouldn’t want you to get beat down in that situation unless you thought you could gain something by it. You weren’t going to empower or change anyone there. Some may have admired you, but everyone had something definite to lose (great wings and new pool tables), and there was only a possibility of gain. I definitely wouldn’t want your son to get beat down for fighting a battle with kids who are just echoing their parents views until/unless they get solidified as their own. But as for the occasional Black guy in the bar, or my son, or your son’s friends, not reacting to the fact that someone shot you in the leg doesn’t reduce the pain any more than ignoring the shot to the psyche that those words impart. You “just ignore it”, the pain, as a matter of survival to ensure you get out of that situation without “further” damage. I’ve done it, and I know I will have to do it again. but it still hurts, it always does.
The one thing that I definitely have found to be true is that every time someone makes a statement like the one made at the bar, and are not checked, chastised, corrected, etc., they become empowered to do more of it… in the same way that every time an abusive husband degrades his wife with no negative repercussions, he is empowered to do it again for whatever purpose it served in his mind. Telling the wife to just ignore it may work the first time, or the first time you hear it happen to her. But the cumulative effect will be her building up a tolerance to abuse that will allow her to accept it from anyone (not good), or to slowly die inside until she becomes what she is told she is (equally as bad). It’s not alright. It never will be alright. I ignored the signs of cancer until I had to start chemotherapy treatment 7 years and two days ago. Sometimes telling someone to ignore it is the only thing you can do because you’re just as helpless to do anything about it as they are. But as my cousin would day, “two dead batteries don’t start no car”. And two helpless people can’t help a painful situation. It still huts… it not your fault that it still hurts, but you didn’t stop it from hurting by saying ignore it. It still hurts, it always does.
Dwayne,
So what’s the way forward?
As I tried to say to you a year or so ago, there will always be random jerks.
Do we allow each of them to knock us off course?
However, in answer to Roger and Morris, I have thought of something that can be done: Rally.
Back in the 60s, blacks and whites came together to protest against institutionalized racism. This demonstration of multiracial brother and sisterhood was real and was effective. I’m not afraid to be a white man who defends the rights of all, nor were those who made those very efforts back in the day. You will always have support from white folks, and all we can do is tell you that there are always going to be random jerks.
If I had told that man I was offended by his remark, he may have given it thoughtful consideration, or he may have looked around and said “Ain’t no n*s in here to hear it, so what’s the big deal?” Or he might have told me to get over it, so to speak.
As you point out, it was unlikely that I’d change him in any way.
And by all other evidence he’s a good guy. I have no reason to believe he would chain a black man to his bumper for kicks; he might find such a thing abhorrent.
In other words, as I know you know, there are good white folks who care about healing and who care about brotherhood. There are abject racists who want to abolish blacks in this country. Then there are fools who say stupid things, either because that’s how they were raised or because they are trying to fit in with their “peers”, the people they know from their neigborhood.
And as I’ve said, I have been treated as a “minority” in black neighborhoods, been picked on just for being a white kid in the wrong place.
It was just as wrong. I was completely ready to be their friend. They didn’t care.
I didn’t hold it against the black race, especially when other black kids were perfectly willing to be my friend.
So, way forward: Ignore random jerks. Rally against anything that looks like institutionalized racism or antagonism, because I agree: Let’s not let that ball pick up too much speed rolling downhill.
From Fox News, 3/21/10:
"
Republican National Chairman Michael Steele and one of the organizers of Saturday's Tea Party rally strongly condemned the racial slurs that some black lawmakers alleged were yelled at them by some health care protesters as they headed for a procedural vote at Capitol Hill.
"I absolutely think it's isolated," Amy Kremer, the grassroots coordinator of the Tea Party Express, told Fox News on Sunday. "It's disgraceful and the people in this movement won't tolerate it because that's not what we're about."
Steele rejected the notion that the incident may make any association with the Tea Party Movement a danger.
"It's not a danger," Steele told NBC's "Meet the Press on Sunday." "It's certainly not a reflection of the movement or the Republican Party when you have idiots out there saying stupid things."
"As Leader Boehner said, that's reprehensible," he said, referring to House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "We don't support that."
" http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/21/tea-pa…
From NBC's "Meet The Press", that same day:
"
House Minority Leader John Boehner condemned racial and homosexual epithets hurled at House Democrats by anti-health reform protesters but called them 'isolated incidents.'
RNC Chairman Michael Steele called the protesters "some stupid people out there saying some very stupid things."
On Meet the Press David Gregory asked Rep. Boehner about racism and the anti-gay comments shouted at Rep. Barney Frank.
"Well listen, there were some isolated incidents on the Hill yesterday that were reprehensible and should not have happened," Boehner replied. "But let's not let isolated incidents get in the way of the fact that millions of Americans are scared to death."
"Is there a danger for Republicans to be associated with the Tea Party movement?" Gregory asked Steele.
"No," answered Steele. "It is certainly not a reflection of the movement or the Republican party when you have some idiots out there saying stupid things. You can have this debate without attacking a member of Congress personally."
" http://rawstory.com/2010/03/boehner-epithets-isol…
“It’s not a danger,” Steele told NBC’s “Meet the Press on Sunday.” “It’s certainly not a reflection of the movement or the Republican Party when you have idiots out there saying stupid things.”
Walt. You do know this came from the exact same man who said race was part of the reason why he has endured such heated criticism as head of the RNC.
He doesn't know if he's coming or going.
Republican leader Michael Steele, whose leadership has been questioned by some in the GOP, said this morning his job is a little bit tougher because of his race.
A viewer of ABC's "Good Morning America" asked Steele whether he thinks he has a smaller margin for error because he is African American.
Yes but others did step forward and condemn.
The bottom line is, do you think it represents the basic values of the movement or is it possible that these people are a fringe element and do not reflect the group as a whole?
I say that's an open question.
Not to kick Steele when he is down, but this is the same conservative who complained of liberal Black politicians playing the "race card" in regards to their relationship and treatment by his party constituents: the same ones to which he is now crying foul and attempting to stave off.
Makes you wonder if Clarence Thomas would be "down for the cause" if they started treating HIM like a "Brotha"! Can ya dig it?
"Smiling faces, smiling faces sometimes; they don't tell the truth. Smiling faces, smiling faces tell lies; and I've got proof"
Hey if we're going to go 70s in our lyrical references, then would it be fair to call Steele a Jive Turkey?
🙂
RIGHT ON!!! It's his thang, he did what he wanted to do!
You all are more hilarious than you're aware. Keep it up.
"These are my people. Americans".
http://www.breitbart.tv/nbc-reporter-quizzes-blac…
Now everyone knows who you are and that you are worthless human garbage. Clearly you are holding signs that preach hatred. You all have to live with that and the repercussions.