
From "the things I wish I wrote" file...
Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters —the black protesters — spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn’t like were enforced by the government? Would these protester — these black protesters with guns — be seen as brave defenders of the Second Amendment, or would they be viewed by most whites as a danger to the republic? What if they were Arab-Americans? Because, after all, that’s what happened recently when white gun enthusiasts descended upon the nation’s capital, arms in hand, and verbally announced their readiness to make war on the country’s political leaders if the need arose.Read the entire thing here.
Imagine that white members of Congress, while walking to work, were surrounded by thousands of angry black people, one of whom proceeded to spit on one of those congressmen for not voting the way the black demonstrators desired. Would the protesters be seen as merely patriotic Americans voicing their opinions, or as an angry, potentially violent, and even insurrectionary mob? After all, this is what white Tea Party protesters did recently in Washington.
Imagine that a rap artist were to say, in reference to a white president: “He’s a piece of shit and I told him to suck on my machine gun.” Because that’s what rocker Ted Nugent said recently about President Obama.
[...]
In other words, imagine that even one-third of the anger and vitriol currently being hurled at President Obama, by folks who are almost exclusively white, were being aimed, instead, at a white president, by people of color. How many whites viewing the anger, the hatred, the contempt for that white president would then wax eloquent about free speech, and the glories of democracy? And how many would be calling for further crackdowns on thuggish behavior, and investigations into the radical agendas of those same people of color?
[...]
And this, my friends, is what white privilege is all about. The ability to threaten others, to engage in violent and incendiary rhetoric without consequence, to be viewed as patriotic and normal no matter what you do, and never to be feared and despised as people of color would be, if they tried to get away with half the shit we do, on a daily basis.
- photo via Getty Images
.
6 comments:
Shh...Don't let the conservatives know this, but there are blacks in the tea party movement:
http://www.bvblackspin.com/2010/04/15/black-tea-party-member/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjatqPkZdrU&feature=related
But you know, those aren't free-thinking human beings, those are just "oreos" and "Uncle Toms" who don't deserve to be acknowledged.
So let's just keep this secret to ourselves, keep ignoring whatever this tea party has to say, and just call them all racists. I mean come on, obviously they disagree with Obama, ergo they are all racists.
We can play this race card on any issue and win any debate; it's just so awesomely empowering!
Folks of your persuasion would also probably argue that America, as a whole, is no longer racist because a black man has been elected President. Forgetting, or more likely purposely ignoring the fact that America is far from alike in their thinking.
Not all Teabag Party members are racist, but I'm beginning to think that more and more of their agenda is being driven by people who are, shall we say, very uncomfortable with an African American in the White House...for whatever reason.
You're actually going to say that one black guy in a sea of white faces means the Tea Bag Party is not racist? For real? With all the imagery and the outright racial-tinged anger that is out there now and was out there during the 2008 campaign?
Sorry, you lose.
.
Of course not all teabaggers are racist. But they're attracting some unsavory allies.
Anon loses. For progressives there is a simple logical framework, applicable for the years 2008-2012:
1. Obama=god.
2. Disagree with #1 = racism.
3. Disagree with #2 = angry racism.
4. Disprove #1 = must be a Fox news lie.
5. Persist in #4 = racism.
Prior to 2008, the framework was:
1. Bush = satan.
2. Disagree with #1 = fascist.
3. Disagree with #2 = islamophobe.
4. Disprove #1 = must be Fox news lie.
5. Persist in #4 = fascist.
Rick actually wastes many words, the above is much simpler and always yields the correct result. The astute student notes that the framework reduces to the following simple boolean logic, aka the Olberman theorem:
!progressive = racist || fascist
The Olberman theorem was proven true by a recent peer-reviewed exhaustive study of progressive blogs and radio shows. Not a single instance was discovered where the party in disagreement with the progressive host was not accused of either racism or fascism.
Poor Anon, he/she never stood a chance.
I see the dining room table was delivered overnight, Rick.
Yeah, from the looks of it he/she/it was making their rounds of anyone who had linked to the post.
.
Post a Comment
Spam, vulgar language, trolling and off-topic comments are not tolerated at SFDB and your comment will be removed if it meets this criteria.