Tea Party vs NAACP = race riots ?

[boink]

this morning I heard some representatives from these groups on NPR and they were spewing some pretty harsh words. I had a paranoid feeling I might see some "political" rallies turn to racial mayhem. I'm afraid I don't have any links to support a structured debate on this at the moment. maybe it's just paranoid thoughts I hope.

I'm sure some of you political junkies have herd some of this stuff somewhere, maybe you have some thoughts on it that will quell my fears ?

I hate this kind of stuff, it always requires alot of reading and honestly my dyslexia would make it a second career to read and understand all of it.

anyway, I'm just really afraid of the "torch and pitchfork crowd" getting riled up and, well the shit hitting the fan hard.

[Baraka_Guru]

Read below for some context:

RNC's Steele, NAACP clash over alleged racism within Tea Party

(CNN) -- The organizational leader of the Republican Party dismissed claims from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People that the Tea Party movement is rife with racism.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele also said, in a statement, "Enough with the name-calling."

Steele is responding to the NAACP's resolution, passed on Tuesday, that condemns the Tea Party movement for what the NAACP believes is rampant racism from many activists. As head of the RNC, Steele -- the organization's first African-American chairman - is essentially pitting the Republican Party against the nation's oldest civil rights group on this specific issue.

"Tea Party activists are your mom or dad, your local grocer, banker, hairdresser or doctor. They are a diverse group of passionate Americans who want to ensure that our nation returns to founding principles that honor the Constitution, limit government's role in our lives, and support policies that empower free markets and free enterprise," Steele said.

NAACP President and CEO Ben Jealous acknowledged that some Tea Party leaders have denounced racism within their ranks.

"Our concern is that we haven't seen 1/8 leaders come out and aggressively denounce people," Jealous said in an interview with CNN on Wednesday.

The NAACP passed the resolution at the organization's 101st annual convention in Kansas City, Missouri. The actual text of the resolution will not be released until the group's National Board of Directors have a full vote in October.

The NAACP claims that Tea Party activists have engaged in racist behavior, for example, by waving signs that degrade African Americans and President Obama, in particular. Also, the NAACP says, a number of Tea Party members think that issues of importance to African Americans get too much attention.

"We take issue with the Tea Party's continued tolerance for bigotry and bigoted statements. The time has come for them to accept the responsibility that comes with influence and make clear there is no space for racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in their movement," Jealous said.

In addition to Steele's response, Tea Party defenders reacted to the NAACP action with swift and angry derision.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, a Tea Party favorite, said the charge from the NAACP is "false, appalling, and is a regressive and diversionary tactic to change the subject at hand."

"To be unjustly accused of association with what Reagan so aptly called that 'legacy of evil' is a traumatizing experience, and one of which the honest, freedom-loving patriots of the Tea Party movement are truly undeserving," she wrote in a posting on her Facebook page Tuesday night.

RNC's Steele, NAACP clash over alleged racism within Tea Party - latimes.com

Sarah Palin attacks NAACP over 'racist' tea party motion

Sarah Palin has attacked a prominent civil-rights organisation which has officially branded the American tea party movement as racist, a day after Michelle Obama delivered the keynote speech at the organisation

The former US vice-presidential candidate urged President Obama and his wife Michelle, to "repudiate" the allegation and "set the record straight".

The National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP) has passed a motion condemning the tea party movement – which is closely linked to the right wing of the Republican Party – for being racist.

In its motion, the NAACP says the movement has engaged in "explicitly racist behaviour" and calls for people to "stand in opposition to [the tea party's] drive to push our country back to the pre-civil rights era." However, Mrs Palin has hit back at the allegation.

"The charge that Tea Party Americans judge people by the colour of their skin is false, appalling, and is a regressive and diversionary tactic to change the subject at hand.," she said.

Mrs Palin added that the tea party movement was "beautiful" and full of "equality loving patriots".

However, the NAACP stood behind its motion and the issue is now set to become important in the forthcoming midterm elections.

Ben Jealous, the president of the organisation, said: "For more than a year we've watched as tea party members have called congressmen the N-word, have called congressmen the F-word. We see them carry racist signs and whenever it happens, the membership tries to shirk responsibility.

"If the tea party wants to be respected and wants to be part of the mainstream in this country, they have to take responsibility." One of America's oldest and most influential civil rights groups, the NAACP has played a central role in ending racist policies over the past century.

However, the tea party movement has quickly risen to also become an influential voice on the right.

It was initially established to campaign against high taxes and big government but its remit has increased and it now lobbies against anything perceived to be a threat against the interests of Americans.

Mrs Obama attracted attention by giving the keynote speech at the NAACP on the day they voted for the motion.

The First Lady said that her husband's presidency had been made possible by the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP) and urged the group to "increase its intensity".

Sarah Palin attacks NAACP over 'racist' tea party motion - Telegraph

[Pearl Trade]

NAACP is a racist organization along with the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the Black Panthers. They support Obama for the sole reason of him being black. If you go to a Tea Party event, you'll be very hard pressed to find a racist in the whole group. They are an outdated group, there is no use for them anymore. "Back in the day" they did alot of good, but now they do more harm than good.

Just another plight to draw attention away from Obama's fast declining popularity. Keep on keeping on, Tea Party.

Boink, I wouldn't worry about anything. There's just alot of tension in the country right now. Nothing's going to happen aside from verbal arguments.

[FuglyStick]

....



Walk away from Tilted Paranoia, Fugly. Just walk away...

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by Pearl Trade

NAACP is a racist organization along with the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the Black Panthers. They support Obama for the sole reason of him being black.

Heh, does that mean Langston Hughes was a racist too? Audre Lourde? Martin Luther King, Jr.? Malcolm X? Bob Marley?

Is George Elliott Clarke a racist?

Where do you draw the line?

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by Pearl Trade

NAACP is a racist organization along with the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the Black Panthers. They support Obama for the sole reason of him being black. If you go to a Tea Party event, you'll be very hard pressed to find a racist in the whole group. They are an outdated group, there is no use for them anymore. "Back in the day" they did alot of good, but now they do more harm than good.

Just another plight to draw attention away from Obama's fast declining popularity. Keep on keeping on, Tea Party.

Boink, I wouldn't worry about anything. There's just alot of tension in the country right now. Nothing's going to happen aside from verbal arguments.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Jackson, Sharpton, Rev. Wright, the Black Panthers and so on are every bit as racist and as full of hate as the KKK and Neo Nazis.... problem is when anyone states this, they themselves are called racist. These people and groups only have 3 purposes, continue hate mongering, keep a divisiveness in the country and raise money so the leaders can continue to buy their million dollar homes, mercedes benz's and so on.

This is the NAACP trying to bully people and use white guilt to try to keep the tea partiers from success. All it will do is fire them up more. Hell, if I recall correctly, when I stated I was going to a tea party there were people on here saying they were nothing buy disgruntled white people and the mainstream media tried to portray them as such.

It's ok for the Black Panthers to break the law and bang batons, call out racial epithets and intimidate people directly outside a polling area (our own government dropped a slam dunk case against them) and the whistleblower is called names and our own government tries to disgrace him.

There are some serious problems here. The sad part is the very people who decried Reagan, the Bushs for their abuses and power mongering through businesses and people (usually the religious right)are the very ones that support this racist bullshit and are so quick to point fingers.

I mean when Dan Gilbert is called a racist for a letter he addressed to Cavs fans to try to show he wants to build a winner and keep his business alive.... is called a racist and acting like a slave owner and people buy this bullshit it shows the mentality of those people... hate, hate, hate.

I truly hope Obama and the Dem party gets their asses handed to them with Reid going down... but my fear is and always has been that something will happen and this election will not go off as smoothly as the past elections or at all for that matter. But my saying that I'm sure is racist to those who want to keep the hate alive.

[boink]

thanks alot Baraka. I guess what I'm wondering is if you all think people will begin to clash at public events ? I meal real riots with people dying ?

I'm not interested in weather either group is racist, racism is everywhere, but all the hubub is talking heads yanking the chains of the masses again. ya know it's like an illegal dog fight.

again nobody has a monopoly on hate, the groups are made up of people who have problems and have alot of anger, but I'm just worried people will really let go, and what will happen.

Perl Trade

Boink, I wouldn't worry about anything. There's just alot of tension in the country right now. nothings going to happen aside from verbal arguments.

I hope your right on this, there is alot of shit in the air now, more than ever I think in my 48 years considering the natural and man made disasters, economic upheaval and 2 wars ?

throwing political-turned-racial violence on top ? geez, it's just too fucking much !

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by pan6467

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Jackson, Sharpton, Rev. Wright, the Black Panthers and so on are every bit as racist and as full of hate as the KKK and Neo Nazis.... problem is when anyone states this, they themselves are called racist.

Dude, I know! They're all trying to cleanse America of Jews and White people! Oh, wait...

These people and groups only have 3 purposes, continue hate mongering, keep a divisiveness in the country and raise money so the leaders can continue to buy their million dollar homes, mercedes benz's and so on.

OH! So that's what they're trying to do. They're trying to keep the brother man down so that they can continue to live like white folk.

This is the NAACP trying to bully people and use white guilt to try to keep the tea partiers from success. All it will do is fire them up more. Hell, if I recall correctly, when I stated I was going to a tea party there were people on here saying they were nothing buy disgruntled white people and the mainstream media tried to portray them as such.

Well the "Tea Parties" do seem to have an unusually high proportion of white faces in the crowds. But I could totally see why the NAACP would want the Tea Partiers to fail; I mean, c'mon, reduced spending and reduced taxes would be the worst thing to happen to blacks, right? Less money for welfare. I mean, many would have to actually get actual jobs, right?

It's ok for the Black Panthers to break the law and bang batons, call out racial epithets and intimidate people directly outside a polling area (our own government dropped a slam dunk case against them) and the whistleblower is called names and our own government tries to disgrace him.

Why do you think it's okay? Oh! You're being ironic. I don't think that's the wisest thing to do in Tilted Paranoia.

There are some serious problems here. The sad part is the very people who decried Reagan, the Bushs for their abuses and power mongering through businesses and people (usually the religious right)are the very ones that support this racist bullshit and are so quick to point fingers.

The world really is black and white! You're so right! The masses are so stupid! Stupid masses....

[filtherton]

Why is Michael Steele defending the tea party movement? He's the guy from the establishment who heads a party that has completely and repeatedly sold out tea party values whenever he was given the chance.

I suspect the conflict would be best described as a conflict about racism between two people with different definitions of racism. So it's really nothing more than a giant semantic cluster fuck.

And can we stop with the preemptive "I guess that makes me a racist" bullshit? Geez Pan, have you stopped even waiting for people to respond to your posts before you play the victim card?

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by boink

thanks alot Baraka. I guess what I'm wondering is if you all think people will begin to clash at public events ? I meal real riots with people dying ?

You know, when it comes to something as serious as race riots, they're usually triggered by some grave injustice, whether true or perceived. I don't think a bunch of racist Tea Partiers shouting and waving placards will trigger race riots. At least, it hasn't happened yet.

[dippin]

Am I the only one who sees the irony of responding to potentially exaggerated claims of racism that were made to delegitimize a political opponent by making their own exaggerated claims of racism in order to delegitimize a political opponent?

Even more ironic is that the people who are responding that way not only want to cry reverse racism, but also somehow claim to be above the fray.

I am not defending the NAACP's decision. Not at all. But the "ironing is delicious."

[roachboy]

i think there should be an episode of the springer show on which all this important stuff is sorted out with a panel of stupid people yelling at each other until there's a donnybrook and jerry's security apparatus has to step in. at the end, jerry will deliver his usual final thought and a calm will once again descend upon the land.

it'll be great.

[Baraka_Guru]

No, they'd rather vote one another off the island.

[The_Jazz]

---

-+-{Important TFP Staff Message}-+- I changed the title of this thread since the term "tea bagger" is offensive to some of those in the movement. Since here are some of those folks that are members here, I'm doing the polite thing. Any disagreements with that decision can be directed to yours truely in private.

[Seaver]

The Tea Party Movement and NAACP both can easily count members of their party which are both racist and archaic in ideology.

Nothing will happen as neither one have any real power over a decent amount of the US population. The tea partiers are only the flavor of the month right now because hardly anyone votes in the party primaries anyways.

[MSD]

Yes, institutional racism against non-whites is dead and modern racism is all about the black power groups and affirmative action
Black Power's Gonna Get You Sucka: Right-Wing Paranoia and the Rhetoric of Modern Racism | Red Room (linked version has inline citations.)

Prominent white conservatives are angry about racism.
Forget all that talk about a post-racial society. They know better than to believe in such a thing, and they're hopping mad.
What is it that woke them up finally, after all these years of denial, during which they insisted that racism was a thing of the past?
Was it the research indicating that job applicants with white sounding names have a 50 percent better chance of being called back for an interview than their counterparts with black-sounding names, even when all qualifications are the same?
No.
Was it the study that found white job applicants with criminal records have a better chance of being called back for an interview than black applicants without one, even when all the qualifications are the same?
No.
Was it the massive nationwide study that estimated at least 1 million cases of blatant job discrimination against blacks, Latinos and Asian Americans each year, affecting roughly one-in-three job seekers of color?
No.
Is it the fact that black males with college degrees are almost twice as likely as their white male counterparts to be out of work?
No.
Is it the data indicating that Chinese-American professionals earn less than 60 percent as much as their white counterparts, even though the Chinese Americans, on average, have more education?
No.
Was it the study that found the lightest-skinned immigrants to the United States make as much as 15 percent more than the darkest, even when the immigrants in question have the same level of education, experience and measured productivity?
No.
Perhaps they finally stumbled upon the evidence suggesting millions of cases of race-based housing discrimination against people of color each year, and this is what has them so incensed?
No.
Or maybe their anger is due to the reports of blatant racism practiced by Wells Fargo, which was deliberately roping black borrowers (to whom they referred as "mud people") into high-cost loans, targeting them for these instruments, and even falsifying credit histories to make black applicants look like greater risks than they were, so as to justify the scam?
No.
Was it the study demonstrating that e-mail inquiries about rental property submitted by people with white sounding names were 60 percent more likely than those with black sounding names to get a positive response from a landlord (meaning an indication that a unit was available for rent), even when the housing had been previously advertised as available?
No.
Maybe they're furious because of the way whites in the New Orleans area conspired after the flooding of the city to keep blacks from returning and being able to find housing on equitable terms, if at all?
No.
Or maybe it's because of the data from the Justice Department, to the effect that blacks are far more likely than whites to have their cars and persons searched after a traffic stop, even though whites, when searched, are more than four times as likely to have drugs or other illegal contraband on us?
No.
Well then, perhaps it's the recent revelations that police in New York City are blatantly profiling blacks and Latinos, stopping and frisking them in massive numbers, even though in 90 percent of all cases, the people they stop are released without any charge because they are found to have done nothing illegal?
No.
Is the source of their anger the data showing that although whites and blacks use and sell drugs at roughly the same rates, African Americans are anywhere from 2.8 to 5.5 times more likely than whites to be arrested for a drug offense, depending on the year? Or perhaps the state level data indicating that in nine states, blacks are arrested at more than seven times the rate of whites, and in Minnesota and Iowa at rates that are more than eleven times greater than white arrest rates for drugs? Or perhaps the additional data that blacks are more than 10 times as likely as whites to be sent to prison for drug offenses, despite relatively equivalent rates of drug crimes? Or the fact that a majority of persons admitted to prison for drug offenses are black, even though there are about six times more white users nationwide?
No.
Maybe they're beside themselves over the fact that millions of black men who are ex-felons and have paid their debt to society are permanently blocked from voting thanks to disenfranchisement laws that were devised for blatantly racist reasons? Surely they are upset that these laws have led to blacks being denied the right to vote after serving their time at a rate that is 7 times the national average?
No.
Perhaps they're enraged by the way white police officers conspired to murder a black man in New Orleans after Katrina, and then cover up the crime, or the way other whites formed a vigilante terror squad and went hunting for black people in the aftermath of the flooding?
No.
Maybe it was that racist e-mail sent by the white Boston police officer to the reporter at the Boston Globe, in which he called Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates a "banana eatin' jungle monkey?"
No.
Then maybe it was the story about that high ranking racist in the Chicago police force who OK'd the torture of black men to extract confessions for years?
No.
Then I bet they must have finally seen that story about the Philadelphia cop who refers to black folks as animals and niggers. That's it, right?
No.
Could it be that they've read and been moved by the dozens of studies that show the cumulative health effects of racism and discrimination on people of color, and which indicate that doctors do indeed treat patients of color differently, and worse, than their white counterparts? Or perhaps the research that finds how even black women with college degrees, decent jobs and good incomes have infant mortality rates for their children that are higher than the rates for white women who dropped out before high school? And the way that researchers believe stresses associated with racial discrimination are implicated in the worse fetal and neo-natal health of these mother's children?
No.
Perhaps it's the research that shows black students being suspended and expelled from school at far higher rates than white students, even though there are no significant differences in the rates at which students of different races violate serious school rules?
No.
Maybe it's the research indicating that teachers set lowered expectations for children with black-sounding names, independent of observed ability, and even when compared to the child's own siblings who have less identifiably black names. These lowered expectations, based on presumptions of lowered competence and ability then result in lower performance by the stigmatized students.
No.
Or maybe it was that troubling story on CNN about how white children and even many children of color seem to prefer white skin, and think that children with black skin are bad, dirty, mean and ugly?
No.
Well then it must be the blatant stuff. Maybe they finally got around to looking at those images of Tea Party protesters and other assorted conservatives coming to rallies with signs advocating the lynching of Democratic party leaders, or portraying the President as an African witch doctor? Or maybe somebody informed them of all the times that conservative and Republican Party activists have sent around blatantly racist e-mails lately, like those portraying the white house lawn covered in watermelons, or once again with the witch doctor imagery, or likening Michelle Obama to an ape, or picturing the President as a pair of "spook eyes" against a black background?
No.
Maybe they're angry at Tea Party leader Mark Williams for calling the President an "Indonesian Muslim" and a "welfare thug?" I mean, that's pretty racialized rhetoric, right?
No.
Or maybe it was the Tea Party leader in Ohio who tweeted about how he wants to shoot Hispanic immigrants, to whom he refers as "spicks?" (sic)
No.
Well then surely it must have been the story about Tea Party candidate for Governor in New York who sent e-mails picturing the President dressed as a pimp and featuring a group of African tribesman performing a traditional dance, which he referred to as the "Obama Inauguration Rehearsal?"
No.
Perhaps what has them angry is the statement by that Arizona Congressman, to the effect that black folks were better off under slavery than they are today?
No.
Maybe it was because of those guys over at the popular right-wing website, FreeRepublic.com who called the President's daughter, Malia, "typical ghetto trash," and a "whore" whose mother likes to entertain her by "making monkey sounds?"
No.
Or perhaps they finally had enough when they heard about how Rep. Ciro Rodriguez was called a "wetback" by one of his constituents and told to go back to Mexico?
No.
Or maybe it was that lawmaker in South Carolina who called both President Obama and Republican Gubernatorial candidate (and Indian American) Nikki Haley, "ragheads?"
No.
Or perhaps they're upset about how the guy who sponsored the law in Arizona, ostensibly to catch "illegal immigrants" (a law they support), turns out to be pals with neo-Nazis? Or the fact that the organization that takes credit for writing the bill has longstanding ties to blatant racists and hate groups?
No.
Or maybe it was the story about how National Review columnist John Derbyshire told Harvard law students that black achievement lags behind white achievement because blacks are biologically inferior to whites?
No.
Well perhaps it was that story about the motorists in Prescott, Arizona who continually shouted racial slurs at artists who were painting a mural on the walls of a school, which featured children of color who go there? And certainly they must have been upset about the fact that initially the school was actually planning to lighten the subjects' skin color so as to appease locals and a right wing talk show host?
No.
Or maybe they're irate because of the report that employees of the Department of Homeland Security have posted blatantly racist comments about Latino immigrants on web boards?
No.
Surely it must be because of the evidence that uniformed American soldiers are joining up with neo-Nazi organizations and even flaunting their membership in such groups?
No.
It is none of this. Neither the evidence of systemic discrimination against people of color in every walk of American life, nor the repeated examples of blatant racism directed towards people of color individually moves them.
But they're angry nonetheless about racism in America.
They're especially angry about the tax being placed on those who use tanning salons. Because this is racist. Against white people. No, seriously.
Oh, and the President criticized a white police officer for arresting a black man for a crime that, turns out, the black man didn't actually commit, according to state law. That Obama would do such a thing--namely, criticize an officer for making an unjustified arrest--means that white police officers are "under assault" from Obama, and that the President is trying to "destroy" the white officer, no doubt because he's white.
Oh, and since people of color disproportionately lack health care coverage, the President's plan for expanding coverage is obviously a racist scheme to get reparations for slavery.
Oh, and the President is deliberately trying to destroy the economy so as to pay back white people for slavery and hundreds of years of oppression.
Oh, and two black kids beat up a white kid on a bus in Belleville, Illinois--something that is obviously due to Obama being President.
Oh, and the President picked Eric Holder as Attorney General. Since Holder has said Americans have often been "cowards" when it comes to discussing race, this proves that Holder is racist against white people, even though he didn't mention white people. He said Americans, and Americans means white people. So he's a bigot. And so is Obama for picking him.
Oh, and the President nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. And she's a Latina, who notes that she sees the world through the lens of her experience, and that she hopes that experience would positively inform her decision-making. And that means she's a bigot. And the fact that Obama nominated her, as well as Eric Holder, proves that he "views white men as the problem" in America, and that the only way you can get promoted by Obama is "by hating white people." Like Tim Geithner, who most definitely hates your honky ass.
Oh, and the President also nominated Elena Kagan, and Kagan once worked for Justice Thurgood Marshall, and Marshall once said the Constitution as originally conceived--which, ya know, excluded blacks from citizenship--was flawed. Imagine. And this means that Marshall was anti-white, and anyone who worked for him must be too.
Oh, and the Obama Justice Department dropped criminal voter intimidation charges against three members of the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia (while obtaining an injunction against a fourth member). So this proves the Administration is allied with the Panthers, whose Philly leader proclaims that he "hates all white people," and Obama probably agrees with him, and is refusing to prosecute because he doesn't care about white folks' voting rights. In fact, the New Black Panthers are part of Obama's "army of thugs." Even though the same Philly leader of the group didn't support Obama for President, and has called Obama a "puppet" and "slavemaster." And of course, as a point of fact, the criminal charges against the other three Panthers were dropped by the Bush Department of Justice. And there have been no voters who actually claim to have been intimidated by the Panthers. And even a leading conservative Republican on the Civil Rights Commission says the incident is much ado about nothing.
Oh, and since the Justice Department is considering bringing federal charges against the white officer who killed Oscar Grant--a black man--in cold blood in Oakland last year, this proves that we've returned to the 1950s, only this time it's whites who are the victims of racist oppression. Because it's oppression to bring charges against a white cop who kills someone. Naturally.
Yes indeed, they all agree, Obama is a "reverse racist" who has a deep-seated hatred of white people, and who is like Hitler, and we know this because he's proposing a national service corps to help work on various community problems, and this is just like the Nazi SS, well, except for the murdering part. Or if not Hitler, then at the very least he's just like an "African colonial despot".
And for sure, Obama is the reason race relations are so strained: not because of the ongoing discrimination against people of color, which the data indicates is commonplace, or because of the incendiary rhetoric coming from conservative commentators. But because of Barack Obama.
Race relations could never be strained by say, for instance, having a white talk show host fantasize about murdering a black congressman with a shovel.
Or by another host calling undocumented migrants from Mexico "invasive species".
Or by spreading lies about how 5 million so-called "illegal aliens" were given subprime mortgages, as a way to blame the undocumented for the housing meltdown, even though there is no evidence whatsoever to support the fabricated claim.
Or by alleging that ACORN (a community-based organization comprised mostly of people of color) committed massive voter fraud so as to help elect Obama, even though there is no evidence that a single illegitimate vote was cast due to ACORN's voter registration efforts, and despite the fact that when a few ACORN operatives filed phony voter registration cards, it was ACORN itself that alerted election officials to the problem
Or by a prominent conservative commentator insisting that white men are experiencing the same kind of oppression that blacks faced for years, even as that commentator has previously reminisced fondly about the days of segregation.
Or by another radio host and prominent conservative author blaming "multicultural" people for "destroying" the country, or calling Arab Muslims "non-humans," or fantasizing about killing people in the "civil rights business."
Or by another radio host and prominent conservative author referring to the mostly black residents of New Orleans, in the wake of Katrina as "worthless parasites" and "human parasitic garbage" because of their high rates of welfare receipt. Even though, according to Census data, there were only 4600 households in all of the city receiving cash welfare at the time of the flooding, which was less than 4 percent of all black households in the city, and whose annual benefits came to only around $2800 per year.
Or by walking around with a sign suggesting that President Obama intends to put white people into slavery.
Or by saying that President Obama only won the election because he's black, and if he weren't black, he'd be a tour guide in Honolulu.
Or by saying that the only reason Colin Powell endorsed Obama was as an act of racial bonding.
Or by saying that Oprah Winfrey is also successful only because she's black.
Or by blaming the economic collapse on fair lending laws and lending to minorities, even though all the evidence suggests such laws and such loans had nothing to do with the housing or larger economic crises.
Or perhaps by having a right-wing talk show host announce a plan for conservatives to "take back the civil rights movement," and compare himself to Martin Luther King Jr. This, even though conservatives were almost uniformly opposed to the movement and King, and even though the talk show host's favorite authors, whose work he promotes regularly, viewed the movement as a communist conspiracy and referred to civil rights activists as animals.
Or by another conservative comparing himself to Dr. King, and speaking of how much he respects King's legacy, even as he--the conservative--has said he believes private businesses should have the right to discriminate on the basis of race.
No, none of those things could strain race relations, or further racism.
And certainly not when compared to a tanning booth tax.
While on the face of it, these kinds of right-wing inanities may seem so absurd as to hardly merit being taken seriously, it's important to step back and think about the internal logic of even the most outlandish claims. I mean, no one can honestly believe that health care reform is reparations. After all, what the hell kind of reparations is it where you have to get sick first in order to get paid? That's not a good hustle. And no one can really believe that some white kid got beat up on a bus because it's "Obama's America," as if the President had sent a text message to those black guys saying: HEY, YNOT BEAT SUM CRAKA ASS 4 ME, U DIG?
But the intellectual strength of the claims is not the issue. It doesn't matter. From a political perspective, even the most insane-sounding claim about Obama's supposed hatred for white people makes sense. It's a perfect way to prime white racial fears and anxieties, to say, in effect, they're coming for your money white folks, and then your children. In a nation where the population will be half people of color within 25-30 years, and where the popular culture is now thoroughly multicultural (and thus many of the icons don't look the way they used to), and where the President doesn't fit a lot of people's conception of what such a person is supposed to look like, and where the economy is in the toilet for millions, playing upon white anxiety is the perfect recipe for political mobilization.
They've said very clearly that they want their country back. And if we who oppose the right don't challenge these folks for the racists they are, or continue to shy away from making race an issue (as if it weren't already), they just might get it.

[robot_parade]

Originally Posted by FuglyStick

....



Walk away from Tilted Paranoia, Fugly. Just walk away...

I said the same thing...well, I didn't refer to myself as 'Fugly', but...yeah.

Originally Posted by MSD

Yes, institutional racism against non-whites is dead and modern racism is all about the black power groups and affirmative action
Black Power's Gonna Get You Sucka: Right-Wing Paranoia and the Rhetoric of Modern Racism | Red Room (linked version has inline citations.)

Wow. Impressive article!

(I wonder, though - I notice that all of the links are to facebook.com/note_redirect...etc, followed by the real URL as a param. Any idea why they're doing that? Some sort of link harvesting? Or maybe it was just reposted from facebook?)

[MSD]

He posted all of them on Facebook originally. If you strip that out, you get the proper URLs.

[The_Dunedan]

I think that a major part of the offense taken on the part of the Tea Party is the egregious double-standard being applied. Tea Party members have been accused of racism, and browbeaten with demands to prove they're -not- racist (an unprovable negative) from Day One because they had the temerity to oppose Mr. Obama. This despite the fact that there are, in fact, "minority" Tea Party members in large numbers (a fact conveniently ignored by the NAACP and mainstream media: doesn't fit the narrative, see). Racism has been repeatedly repudiated by various well-known Tea Party members and speakers, which repudiation has been predictably ignored by the NAACP and mainstream media (doesn't fit the narrative, see). All the while, unsubstantiated claims that various Congressmen were called racist or homophobic names (none of which was, to the best of my knowledge, captured by any of the dozens of cameras and microphones trained on the people in question at the time the alleged incident occurred)* are being used to smear the entire Tea Party movement as a crowd of racist thugs.

All the while the NAACP has done nothing to repudiate the voter-intimidation and racism practiced by the New Black Panther Party and their hangers-on (kill cracker babies, etc) and has seemed to cozen to it in many regards.

Compare: Tea Party members are accused, without evidence, of using racist slurs and for this are demonized as racists in the media and by major advocacy groups. The New Black Panther Party is let off the hook despite video of them advocating genocide against whites, infanticide against whites, and practicing voter-intimidation through the use of inflammatory and hateful language and the carry of weapons.

That sort of double-standard is what has people upset. Lots of people within the Tea Party have been angered by the racist fringe of their own movement from Day One and have done everything possible to distance themselves from such people, and -still- they're tarred as racists, while the people -calling- them racist have done nothing whatever to repudiate their own racist lunatic fringe.


*Andrew Breitbart has offered a $100,000.00 reward for video of this actually happening. So far, he still has his money.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

That sort of double-standard is what has people upset. Lots of people within the Tea Party have been angered by the racist fringe of their own movement from Day One and have done everything possible to distance themselves from such people, and -still- they're tarred as racists, while the people -calling- them racist have done nothing whatever to repudiate their own racist lunatic fringe.

I can't speak much for the NAACP and how it handles or fails to handle its runaway elements, but when you have somewhat influential Tea Party supporters such as radio host Mark Williams (who was even a part of the Tea Party Express) spouting off things such as this....

YouTube - Anderson Cooper DESTROYS "Tea Party" Leader Mark Williams

YouTube - Anderson Cooper DESTROYS "Tea Party" Leader Mark Williams

...in addition to posting satire such as this....

Dear Mr. Lincoln

We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don’t cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!

In fact we held a big meeting and took a vote in Kansas City this week. We voted to condemn a political revival of that old abolitionist spirit called the ‘tea party movement’.

The tea party position to “end the bailouts” for example is just silly. Bailouts are just big money welfare and isn’t that what we want all Coloreds to strive for? What kind of racist would want to end big money welfare? What they need to do is start handing the bail outs directly to us coloreds! Of course, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is the only responsible party that should be granted the right to disperse the funds.

And the ridiculous idea of “reduce[ing] the size and intrusiveness of government.” What kind of massa would ever not want to control my life? As Coloreds we must have somebody care for us otherwise we would be on our own, have to think for ourselves and make decisions!

The racist tea parties also demand that the government “stop the out of control spending.” Again, they directly target coloreds. That means we Coloreds would have to compete for jobs like everybody else and that is just not right.

Perhaps the most racist point of all in the tea parties is their demand that government “stop raising our taxes.” That is outrageous! How will we coloreds ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn? Totally racist! The tea party expects coloreds to be productive members of society?

Mr. Lincoln, you were the greatest racist ever. We had a great gig. Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by the massa in the house. Please repeal the 13th and 14th Amendments and let us get back to where we belong.

Sincerely

Precious Ben Jealous, Tom’s Nephew NAACP Head Colored Person

NAACP Resolution: [National Association for the Advancement of] Colored People change minds about emancipation MarkTalk.com News & Commentary

...don't you think it muddies the water? That's to say the least. To me, it seems to fan the flames. If he's a leader, he should act as one. Does he want everyone in the Tea Party to act this way? To think this way?

When I see people call the NAACP racists, it's often because they support people on the basis of their being black or because they raise a flag when they see something they deem as racist against blacks (aka "playing the race card"). Well, they happen to be called the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. It's their raison d'etre. People consider this in itself racist. I don't get it.

How is it racist to support a racial group on the basis of said racial group being disadvantaged by default? They do this because they see a disparity of equality between this group and the status quo. It's as though people are implying that if you don't want to be discriminated against, then don't bring any attention to your discrimination because that only adds to the discrimination's discrimination....

I don't get it.

Should we dismantle all the women's groups on the basis of their being sexist? Should we dismantle all the poverty groups on the basis of their being classist? Should we dismantle children's and senior's groups on the basis of their being ageist?

I'm sure the NAACP has its problems with racist elements, but to call the organization itself racist doesn't make sense to me. Maybe I'm missing something. It could be because I'm generally ignorant of their day-to-day operations.

[The_Dunedan]

If he's a leader, he should act as one.

Here's part of the problem. There is no "leadership" within the Tea Party. There is no Pope, no Party Chair, no Generalissimo to give "official" opinions or repudiations. Certain people may be influential, yes, but only to a point. And all this aside, Mark Williams is widely held within the Tea Party movement to be a GOP sellout who's mostly after his own hide. He's an attention whore, nothing more.

Secondarily speaking, I doubt it would be possible for -anyone- from the Tea Party to get anything approaching a fair hearing from Anderson Cooper. He's the smarmy, in-the-tank jackhole who gave us "teabagger" as a sexual insult for Tea Party members in the first place.

[Baraka_Guru]

About Cooper: All he needed to do, really, was give Williams some rope.

About Tea Party leadership: the nature of groups implies that there needs leadership. Whether it's organized as such is another thing, but there must be even a tenuous leadership structure in the group regardless.

I doubt Tea Partiers want to be accused of being too socialist.

[roachboy]

so there's no central structure to the tea party and you're quite adamant about that

(i don't doubt it btw....i spent some time with tea partiers over the 4th and found them a pretty disparate but affable bunch whose politics ranged from people who confuse ayn rand with a philosopher to outright neo-fascists--but nice. you know.----to monetarists to social reactionaries to lost old anarchists to apolitical people who are for whatever reason mobilized this way...the only things they had in common were (1) they were freaked out about Something. Something Big. The Way Shit is Going. Something Big that was "explained" a couple times to me with: Whatever, dude, just look around. and (2) they hadn't been politically active before. so remarkably naive.)

but you assume that somehow the naacp "controls" the new panther party?
you're joking, right?

and you know about the panther party how? through the lens of a search for a false equivalent? isn't that getting tired? conservative media has trafficked systematically in the false equivalent and projections based on them for years. the tactic is transparent. why continue with it?

[Baraka_Guru]

Thanks, rb. Your parenthetical remark made me laugh...twice.

[The_Dunedan]

but you assume that somehow the naacp "controls" the new panther party?
you're joking, right?

I assume nothing of the kind. My point is that the non-existent Tea Party "leadership" is being called upon to repudiate the racism of their fringe associates, people whom they in no way control, by people who -also- have a racist fringe associated with them (but whom they likewise cannot control). The difference is that various high-profile members of the Tea Party -have- repudiated the racism of their uncontrollable fringe (which repudiation has been ignored), while NAACP leadership has not. Likewise the Tea Party has been demonised in media as racists due to the existence of their uncontrollable racist fringe (and despite said repudiation), while the NAACP has not. Both sides have a racist fringe associated with them, but one side has been called repeatedly and excessively to account, while the other has not.

This does not, of course, address the fact that Tea Party "racism" appears to consist of (and be supported by) satirical and at times offensive placards. King Samir Shabazz and his associates explicitly advocate outright genocide. "Kill cracker babies" and all that. Even Freddie-boy Phelps doesn't tell his followers that "you're gonna need to kill some baby fags." Yet the NBPP gets a pass.

[roachboy]

premise problem: the equation between the tea party--an organization which doesn't exist---and the naacp--which is an old-school civil rights organization--is in itself false.
it adds legitimacy to the tea party where none should be.
it's arrogant on the part of the defenders of the tea party to pretend that they're on the same level, that they've done the same things, that they have anything remotely like the same track record.
they don't.
the tea party is only trafficking in this canard because they assume that the acronym registers as "some black organization". that's all there is to it. tv news cycle stuff.


second, if you **know** the naacp doesn't "run the show" for african-american people, then what the are you doing calling for a "repudiation" from them of a group you know they don't control?
particularly after you just get finished whining about how put upon the tea party non-organization is for issuing a repudiation (how if there's no organization?) of it's "fringe elements" (but if there's no organization then there's no center, so what's a fringe?)


this "issue" is an unwitting repetition of the Reconstruction period template for the non-movement that is the tea party: white petit-bourgeois types are the Ultimate Victims. any attempts to address racism happen at the (imaginary) expense of that social group.

if you want a good history, read w.e.b. dubois' "the souls of black folk."

[The_Dunedan]

second, if you **know** the naacp doesn't "run the show" for african-american people, then what the are you doing calling for a "repudiation" from them of a group you know they don't control?

I'm not. I'm pointing out the double-standard of expecting Group A to control Fringe Nutters 1-6 (which they don't and can't control) while -not- expecting Group B to control Fringe Nutters 7-12 (whom they -also- do not and cannot control). An impossible demand is being made of Group A (knowing it's impossible, with the goal being to discredit said group) while -not- being made of Group B (-because- it's impossible, and the people making the demands have no interest in discrediting Group B).

[roachboy]

but the equivalence the charge of double standard is based on is false.

[The_Dunedan]

I don't see how, except that the NAACP is a centralised group with a leadership structure of which demands may reasonably be made, while the Tea Party is not. You appear to base your contention of false equivalency upon longevity and your political prejudices (Left = good, legitimate, coherent; Right = bad, illegitimate, incoherent). I base my contention of equivalency on the fact that both groups are composed of individuals with a widely varying field of viewpoints, that some of those individuals and viewpoints are racist and repugnant while the majority are not, and that both groups are advocating to whatever extent they are able for their own interests as they see them.

[roachboy]

actually, i based my argument first on the simple fact of organization with an inside and an outside (naacp) as over against one that does not (tea party).

second: the days of the naacp being a "left" organization are long over with. you don't know the lay of the land seemingly.

so if the naacp has an inside and an outside and is (like it or not) WAY more moderate than is the new panther party, so much that there's no reason to assume any contact between the organizations (this runs both ways as the panther party is still leninist, so very attentive to inside/outside questions) much less influence.

the only way in which organizationally (and this stands in for logic as well, since you're talking about actually existing organizations in the panther party and naacp) these entities have **anything** in common is if you view them from a perspective of not knowing a whole lot and lump them all together because they're primarily african-american organizations. but push at that too far, particularly given that you know there's no reason to assume contact, and you land in a version of the problem you're protesting about (o those black folk are all the same blah blah blah)...

and if your real point is to complain about the treatment meted out to the tea party by the mainstream (moderate conservative) media to the tea party, this is a strange way to go about it (i know, i know, the thread kinda requires it)....but personally i don't see that the tea party has anything to complain about. compare the amount of coverage its actions get and have gotten to ANYTHING organized by groups to the left of the democrats (anti-war movement anyone?) and you'll perhaps understand why basically all this complaining makes me laugh.

i think it's funny.

the tea party gets sweetheart coverage. it wouldn't exist as a movement without the sweetheart coverage it gets on faux news for example. i wouldn't complain if the lunatics are the public face of the movement. the movement owes EVERYTHING to the exposure. there is no bad publicity, right?

[The_Dunedan]

the tea party gets sweetheart coverage.

On certain FOX segments, maybe. But Anderson Cooper referring to them as "tea-baggers" with that asinine little smirk is hardly "sweetheart." MSNBC using an edited photo of a black Tea Party member carrying an AR-15 (carefully cropped to show only the gun, not the skin-colour of its' owner) to score gotcha points about "racist white teabaggers carrying guns to rallies because they're angry about a black man being President" is hardly "sweetheart." Glenn Beck comparing Ron Paul's 11/5 "Money bomb" to terrorism and intimating that Ron Paul supporters should be "dealt with" by the military as terrorists is hardly "sweetheart."

the only way in which organizationally (and this stands in for logic as well, since you're talking about actually existing organizations in the panther party and naacp) these entities have **anything** in common is if you view them from a perspective of not knowing a whole lot and lump them all together because they're primarily african-american organizations. but push at that too far, particularly given that you know there's no reason to assume contact, and you land in a version of the problem you're protesting about (o those black folk are all the same blah blah blah)...

You're letting your prejudices get the better of you again. The point you make above (that the NAACP and NBBP are separate and that one does not control the other) is corollary to the point I've been making: that the Tea Party is no more capable of controlling their lunatic fringe and hangers-on than the NAACP is of controlling the NBPP. The difference is that nobody is trying to force the NAACP (which is, as you correctly point out, an actual formal organization which would be structurally capable of acting as a whole) into accountability for the Panthers, while people are continuously trying to force the Tea Party movement (which is, again, -not- a formal organization and therefore lacks the structural ability to do -anything- as a whole) into accountability for their fringe gadflies. Nobody with any brains calls the NAACP racist because they're unable to rein in the Panthers, but everybody and their dog has gone after the Tea Party as a pack of racists because they're unable, for analagous reasons, to rein in the assorted inbreds that show up to their events.

[roachboy]

actually, dunedan, the problem is simpler still. to revert to russian revolution-speak, the tea party has the problem that dogged out the mensheviks--lack of formal structure. there are up and down sides to this. in this particular situation, the tea party is dealing with a down side. for other purposes, the same features are likely a plus--like mobilizing across a spectrum of right political positions.

but there's little dispute that the tea party has in the main benefitted from alot alot of press. positive or negative, it hardly matters. the coverage is what generated the impression (illusion?) that there was such a thing as "the tea party"...think about it. without that coverage, the tea party would be in the same kind of position as the militia movement...not able to move outside a very narrow demographic, not able to manage to go past being a mosaic of organizations many no bigger than a post-office box, etc. etc etc.

[Jinn]

This entire thread has a very serious framing issue, a framing issue to common to many debates about race in America. It seems somehow that the discussion of racism is deliberately turned to one of individiual opinion, as if "He's a racist" or "I'm not a racist" is meaningful, or if racism boiled simply down into whether one discriminated against someone of a different race or not. It's a really unfortunate diversion because it leads otherwise good people into debating back and forth about whether they are racist or not, or whether some tea party leader is racist instead of addressing valid questions about race. Questions about how race influences our institutions, and whether there exists actual institutional racism in healthcare or policing, education or finances. Quite simply there are differences, and a vast amount of time could be spent by educated people debating those issues and their potential solutions.

Instead, we get this worthless garbage about whether the NAACP is a "racist organiztaion" or if the Tea Party is racist. And we get all sorts of platitudes and truly intellectually devoid arguments pushed in defense of "I'm not racist, see!"

I'm not particularly selecting you Dunedan, as much as your argument:

Originally Posted by The Dunedan

This despite the fact that there are, in fact, "minority" Tea Party members in large numbers (a fact conveniently ignored by the NAACP and mainstream media: doesn't fit the narrative, see)

There's two things here which really make this a problematic argument. The first, and most obvious, is that "large numbers" is rather specious. If you mean to say "in large percentage", e.g. a large percentage of self-identifying Tea Partiers are themselves minorities, you're simply factually incorrect. But beyond that inaccuracy, even if it were a substantial percentage, would an organization comprised by a large percentage of minorities suddenly *not* be racist? You seem to believe the NAACP is racist despite its clear minority precense, so clearly that can't be the case.

The foolish goal of color-blindness addressed by pan is not even worth discussing at length, but it presents the same issues as a diversion from actual discussions of the absolute racial inequality in this country. If you're looking for examples, MSD's post above has some great examples.

It seems rather unfortunate that the discussion (and by "this discussion", I don't mean the current TFP discussion) is lead by white men claiming that the primary cause of racism is black groups look the NAACP causing their "diviseness" and that in fact there is significant racism against the dominant group. It's a demonstration of ignorance and not of coherent or defensible argument.

[The_Dunedan]

actually, dunedan, the problem is simpler still. to revert to russian revolution-speak, the tea party has the problem that dogged out the mensheviks--lack of formal structure. there are up and down sides to this. in this particular situation, the tea party is dealing with a down side. for other purposes, the same features are likely a plus--like mobilizing across a spectrum of right political positions.

I'd never considered their position in that light, but you have a very significant point. And given the neo-Trotskyist positions of some with the GOP, one has to wonder whether this will force the Tea Party in a more centralised Trotsky-ite direction (this is where Mrs. Palin legitimately worries me), with all its' attendant vulnerabilities, or will they find a way to effectively move within their sphere while retaining their essentially leaderless and therefore inclusive and flexible structure?

---------- Post added at 05:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:37 PM ----------

. The first, and most obvious, is that "large numbers" is rather specious. If you mean to say "in large percentage", e.g. a large percentage of self-identifying Tea Partiers are themselves minorities, you're simply factually incorrect.

If I'd meant percentage, I'd have used the word "percentage." I meant numbers, total, aggregate. As a consequence I used the word "numbers."

[Jinn]

Do you know what specious means?

What is a large number? 1? 5? 10? 15? 1000? 10,000?

[The_Dunedan]

Misleading in appearance, misleadingly attractive, or having the appearance of plausibility while actually being incorrect.

You contend that my statement that there are large numbers of non-white Tea Partiers is specious: ie misleading in appearance, misleadingly attractive, or superficially plausible while factually incorrect. How is this the case?

And the definition of a "large number" is, as is the term itself, entirely subjective. As a result, what I consider "large" you may not. Ergo, a strawman inviting a moving of goalposts. Since the Tea Party (not being an actual organization) does not keep membership rolls or demographic data on itself, this is an unanswerable question. I perceive the Tea Party as having a significant non-white constituency, while others (including most of the media) deny that -any- such constituency of whatever size exists at all. While neither position is objectively provable, one is demonstrably closer to reality than the other.

[Baraka_Guru]

As an interesting aside, various organizations have tried to measure the demographics for Tea Partiers.

Tea Party movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

National (US) Poll * March 24, 2010 * Tea Party Could Hurt GOP In Co - Quinnipiac University – Hamden, Connecticut

The latter links to the results of a national poll that suggests 88% of Tea Partiers are white. A separate CNN poll found that 80% were white. I'm not sure how scientific either of these were.

These may seem like fairly high percentages, but keep in mind that 75% of Americans are white. (Another interesting aside: if you remove the White American subgroup "White Hispanic and Latino Americans," the percentage drops to around 65%.)

[Jinn]

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

I perceive the Tea Party as having a significant non-white constituency, while others (including most of the media) deny that -any- such constituency of whatever size exists at all. While neither position is objectively provable, one is demonstrably closer to reality than the other.

If you deign that your opinion is entirely a perception not based on an objective fact then we agree. That was my point. Though I'm a bit confused by your claim one is 'demonstrably closer to reality'. How would you demonstrate said thing if you admit that it is "an unanswerable question"?

[The_Dunedan]

My position: The Tea Party movement has a considerably non-white contingent.

Media/Opposing position: The Tea Party has a negligible or non-existent non-white contingent.

Since one can, in fact, see non-white faces at Tea Party functions (and since, as Baraka points out above, polling data seems to put the Tea Party at approximately 12-20% non-white) one of these positions is demonstrably closer to reality than the other, despite the fact that both are subjective. It's the same as describing a sunset as "reddish" while another describes the sunset as "green." "Reddish" is a good approximation of the objectively indescribable colour of a sunset, while "green" is so far removed from that reality as to be safely describable as "not even close to reality."

I realise it's a clumsy way of making the point, but it's the best I could come up with on a busy day.

[ASU2003]

I know that there are still racists in this country. The issue seems to be, that since neither major political party will do anything to advance their cause, they will flock to this new one. They can get some subtle things into their small agenda and random policies, even though they will predominately hurt people of a darker skin color or lower economic status. For example, the whole immigration debate is where each group has a different belief (Dems = make Latinos happy, GOP = cheap labor, Tea party = secure borders, show your papers, use military, or allow ranchers their right to protect themselves by shooting trespassers).

MSD's post was pretty good with the huge list of things still happening in this country.