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.
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.
Imagine that a prominent mainstream black political commentator had long employed an overt bigot as Executive Director of his organization, and that this bigot regularly participated in black separatist conferences, and once assaulted a white person while calling them by a racial slur. When that prominent black commentator and his sister — who also works for the organization — defended the bigot as a good guy who was misunderstood and “going through a tough time in his life” would anyone accept their excuse-making? Would that commentator still have a place on a mainstream network? Because that’s what happened in the real world, when Pat Buchanan employed as Executive Director of his group, America’s Cause, a blatant racist who did all these things, or at least their white equivalents: attending white separatist conferences and attacking a black woman while calling her the n-word.
Imagine that a black radio host were to suggest that the only way to get promoted in the administration of a white president is by “hating black people,” or that a prominent white person had only endorsed a white presidential candidate as an act of racial bonding, or blamed a white president for a fight on a school bus in which a black kid was jumped by two white kids, or said that he wouldn’t want to kill all conservatives, but rather, would like to leave just enough—“living fossils” as he called them—“so we will never forget what these people stood for.” After all, these are things that Rush Limbaugh has said, about Barack Obama’s administration, Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama, a fight on a school bus in Belleville, Illinois in which two black kids beat up a white kid, and about liberals, generally.
Imagine that a black pastor, formerly a member of the U.S. military, were to declare, as part of his opposition to a white president’s policies, that he was ready to “suit up, get my gun, go to Washington, and do what they trained me to do.” This is, after all, what Pastor Stan Craig said recently at a Tea Party rally in Greenville, South Carolina.
Imagine a black radio talk show host gleefully predicting a revolution by people of color if the government continues to be dominated by the rich white men who have been “destroying” the country, or if said radio personality were to call Christians or Jews non-humans, or say that when it came to conservatives, the best solution would be to “hang ‘em high.” And what would happen to any congressional representative who praised that commentator for “speaking common sense” and likened his hate talk to “American values?” After all, those are among the things said by radio host and best-selling author Michael Savage, predicting white revolution in the face of multiculturalism, or said by Savage about Muslims and liberals, respectively. And it was Congressman Culbertson, from Texas, who praised Savage in that way, despite his hateful rhetoric.
Imagine a black political commentator suggesting that the only thing the guy who flew his plane into the Austin, Texas IRS building did wrong was not blowing up Fox News instead. This is, after all, what Anne Coulter said about Tim McVeigh, when she noted that his only mistake was not blowing up the New York Times.
Imagine that a popular black liberal website posted comments about the daughter of a white president, calling her “typical redneck trash,” or a “whore” whose mother entertains her by “making monkey sounds.” After all that’s comparable to what conservatives posted about Malia Obama on freerepublic.com last year, when they referred to her as “ghetto trash.”
Imagine that black protesters at a large political rally were walking around with signs calling for the lynching of their congressional enemies. Because that’s what white conservatives did last year, in reference to Democratic party leaders in Congress.
Hmm. For some reason, it's difficult to imagine that.
I think that particularly the image of the armed Blacks descending on DC is the one wherein the differences are most stark. There are some principled supporters of an expansive Second Amendment who have properly noted the history of gun restrictions as a method of White supremacist governments nationwide to maintain a monopoly of violence in a bid to keep the Black population suppressed.* But in the eyes of many, a Black man with a gun is the very threat that White people need their guns to keep at bay. White gun owners are patriots, Black gun owners are simply thugs (the Boondocks used to do some incredible riffs on this). The Black Panthers are rarely seen as emblematic of "authentic Americans".
* This doesn't have no relevance to the contemporary gun control debate, but it can be over-stated. I think the fact that gun control has historical connections to racist domination is important, but not as important as the clear preferences of the Black community in governing their own communities.
26 comments:
But the three black people that go to every Tea Party event are fine with all that so we know it's okay.
There is one huge flaw in this post. When accusing people of doing something, you must provide links to show that what you are expressing actually happened. I remember a few did, and they are despicable, But without providing links to buttress the case, this comes off as rhetoric instead of fact.
All kidding aside though, there are a few historical analogs to Wise's examples that do come to my mind, so I don't have to imagine. Of course, in those cases, we had talk radio uproar and sometimes even Congressional hearings. And politicians were expected to disavow and condemn the "troublesome element." Which I take to be Wise's point.
PS:
sonicfrog,
It is rhetoric. Rhetoric based on common knowledge. It never purported to be a scholarly work.
Yes, but is the "common knowledge" correct? For much of the purported incidences listed, the strongest evidence seems to indicate the incidences never happened, or are not endorsed by the Tea Party organizers.
Isn't this the same as taking the Black Panthers doctrines of violence, and superimposing them on the whole civil rights movement?
Well I'd note that American conservatives generally can't name a living figure from the civil rights movement they do approve of. (Of course, they're all right with Martin Luther King, and even claim him as one of their own based on a handful of quotes they happily use to support their preferred policies. Not that any intellectually serious person thinks the man would actually support those policies, were he alive to comment on them.)
As for what the "Tea Party organizers" don't endorse, that's not the same as not fostering and tacitly encouraging. When you get them saying Obama is an American citizen "as far as I know," that's a wink. When it's "well that's not really the issue" (which is what the head of whatever than gun-group that's too extremist for the NRA told Chris Matthews the other day) that's a wink and a nod. And when it's Glenn Beck saying that focusing on the birth certificate is effort best channeled toward other things, it's a wink, a nod, and a handjob.
And in any event, yes, Rush Limbaugh and his ilk are on record saying the things Wise alludes to.
(My favorite Rush rant is the one where he said Obama would immediately pull out of Iraq because he doesn't care about the Middle East or freedom or whatever and then invade Darfur because, being, as Rush unironically insisted, a racist, Obama only really cares about black people.
No one bats a thousand, I guess.)
Joe, that last comment has "blanket statement" written all over it. The converse could be said of liberals - they haven't met a civil rights leader they don't like, even if they endorsed violence and murder to get what they want. Lets face it, both sides, conservatives and liberals, are more than happy to blindly gloss over horrible truths when it serves their needs.
As per the second paragraph - if that is the case, then, since gay pride parades often features known members of NAMBLA (and no, not the Marlon Brando look-a-likes), sometimes even featured floats in the parades, then all gays "tacitly encourage" hooking up with 11 year old boys? Isn't that "a wink, a nod, and a handjob." toward pedophilia?
PS. If King was not assassinated, and he were still alive, the Rushites probably wouldn't like him now either.
sonicfrog,
For much of the purported incidences listed, the strongest evidence seems to indicate the incidences never happened, or are not endorsed by the Tea Party organizers.
Which incidents never happened?
As for whether they are endorsed by the Tea Party organizers, this goes back to David's earlier post linking TNC on the subject of the Tea Party movement's difference from the civil rights movement (which most people do not consider to have been led or organized by the Black Panthers): unlike the Montgomery bus boycott organizers who carefully selected who would be the test case (respectable Rosa Parks, rather than a pregnant-out-of-wedlock teenager), the Tea Party defines itself as a "grassroots" movement that deliberately avoids having any leadership. I saw these folks on Glenn Beck's "3/12" show and they all denied that they were "leaders," because the Tea Party has no leadership.
When you have no structure or organization, you get stuck with whoever shows up, whatever they are doing. There's a reason MLK et al actually trained the people with whom they protested in the philosophy of nonviolence and passive resistance. They trained people to withstand cops' batons, dogs and fire hoses without offering violence in return. Can you imagine how the Tea Partiers -- many of them armed, of course -- would react to being treated the way civil rights protesters were?
Lets go through the list of the events real quick and analyze them from a conservative POV.
On the gun protests. The protests themselves were second amendment rights protests. Oh, there is a detail that would have proved useful. And if a group of Afircan Americans were to stage one of these, well, it would be a Rush / Hannity / Beck wet-dream (shudder) as it would be used to show that more minorities are coming around to their POV.
Second paragraph. Spitting on congressmen is stupid. Did the guy wind up and spit? Or did spit fly from his mouth when he was yelling? We have video and it looks like the former, not the latter. Are you willing to put this on the line and say that there have been no spitting incidence involving white congressmen? I'll do some digging on that, but twenty to one says there will be one of those too.
Paragraph three: Remember when I said that links are important in establishing and enhancing your case? Follow The Links. 'nuff said.
The Buchanan thing. Don't know much about it. I do wonder what would happen if a black woman accused a bunch of white frat boys of rape, that even if the evidence was obvious that the woman was not being truthful, lying, and the rape could not have occurred, then many liberals who sided with the accuser continue to call the white privileged frat boys racists and rapists, based on race, not on fact? Oh, that did happen.
This game can be played with all sorts of incidences.
I, for one have not, and do not claim that the Tea Party thing is in any way on the same scale as the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's. Again that would be another Rush / Hannity / Beck wet dream (shudder). The Tea Party is important because it is the conservatives getting off the couch for the first time ever I think. The original intent, fiscal responsible government is still the main driver in the movement, but it has, as all political movements do, been commandeered by outside parties to serve their own political purposes. Does that make the Tea Party racist.... no. But it does weaken the credibility of the original intent.
Must go work now.
sonic, moral equivalency only works when there's some proportionality.
I must have missed the chairman of the DNC being forced to call an active Black Panther an important voice in the Democratic Party, as Michael Steele did with Rush.
But this whole exercise is nothing if not an exercise in moral equivalency. And besides, that response is not really a response to my post.
I guess you missed the repugnant statements by the Rev Wright, or the influence of William Ayers on Obama's political career too. So I guess it all evens out.
Well, at least you dropped the Concerned Neutral Logician act. The fact that you're talking about "the influence of William Ayers" on Obama pretty well suggests you buy into every bit of hackery that comes out of FOX. So I'm probably wasting my time.
But since I'm here, I might as well point out that cable news couldn't shut up about Jeremiah Wright, and what a relevant issue a ten-seond clip of generic leftist moralizing was to the problems of the day. But nary a peep about Ted Nugent and Stan Craig's threats of violence.
Now, if you can muster the intellectual honesty to face facts, why don't you tell me precisely when Obama got on the radio and called William Ayers an important voice in the Democratic Party. (I'll give you a hint, HE DIDN'T. All the FOX crowd has is them being in the same room a few times... give me a fucking break. Politicians fucking mingle, and solicit donations from ,and visit houses belonging to, and kiss babies of, people they barely know all the time. There's a big fat line between that and coming on some pundit's show and fellating the guy because you know his listeners are your base.)
The fact that you're talking about "the influence of William Ayers" on Obama pretty well suggests you buy into every bit of hackery that comes out of FOX.
Rush and the Rev Wright are in many ways birds of a feather. Each spew the occasional venomous barb that keeps their flock happy. One simply has a bigger flock and a microphone.
As for Ayers, I have always contended that he was more an inconvenience for Obama, and not "a close buddy" that the Hannityites portent him to be. In order for Oama to advance in political circles in Chicago, Ayers was the guy who would provide the opportunities. Even so, I find it just as disturbing that he could rise to such a position of influence in the Democratic party, as I do that any Republican could think that trotting out Alan Keyes for anything is somehow a good idea.
Pitty the unthinking partisan bent you just displayed. Despite your wanting of me to be so, I am not a blind fox news follower. If you had read my blog over the last 5 1/2 years, you would realize just how silly that statement is. But, just like the ease with which Mr. Wise labels anything outside his approval as racist, you have no problem pigeon-holing me as just another FOX news zombie. It's a great way to marginalize your opponent; it's a crappy way to debate.
PS. And still you didn't respond substantively to my counter to Tims original post.
As for Ayers, I have always contended that he was more an inconvenience for Obama, and not "a close buddy" that the Hannityites portent him to be. In order for Oama to advance in political circles in Chicago, Ayers was the guy who would provide the opportunities. Even so, I find it just as disturbing that he could rise to such a position of influence in the Democratic party
This sort of "I don't hold the factually-erroneous ideas of a Hannityite; I hold a different set of factually-erroneous ideas" distinction doesn't really help your case for being the noble non-partisan of this discussion.
Ayers is not a person of great influence in the Democratic Party (can you name any position he's held in it?), nor was he "the guy who would provide the opportunities" for Obama to advance in Chicago politics. There were a half-dozen people far more crucial just to Obama's Illinois political career -- Hank De Zutter, Hermene Hartman, Alice Palmer, Deborah Leff, Emil Jones, even Michael Pfleger. Look at contemporaneous news accounts of Obama's first political campaign and see if you can find any mention of Ayers. Palmer wanted Obama to meet some aldermen and other folks before she did her formal announcement of him as her successor. Ayers had this event at his house. That's it. If Ayers hadn't offered his house, the event would have been held elsewhere. People like you assume Ayers must have been really important in Chicago politics because y'all can't fathom that a former Weatherman could be seen merely as a liberal guy with a nice house who is willing to pass the wine and cheese. No, for Obama to be willing to cross such a demonic threshold, Ayers must be very powerful indeed.
If you really knew about Ayers, you'd be aware that his meaningful influence is in progressive education, not politics. Look at Google News for the 1995-96 period of Obama's first political campaign and search Ayers's name: it comes up over and over, but in reference to school reform, not politics. People who care about education policy and juvenile welfare generally are less concerned about what someone believes regarding the Vietnam War, and more interested in what he believes about theme-based curricula or the small schools movement. In Chicago, he's a guy with a much better chance of directing where private money (like that for the Annenberg Challenge) will go, than in handing out taxpayers' largess.
As for your response to Wise:
He does mention the 2nd Amendment in reference to the protests. Your own link to the HuffPo makes clear that the rally was not a single-issue protest, but instead was clearly directed at what the protesters deemed to be unconstitutional actions by the Obama Administration, such as health care reform's individual insurance mandate. If the rally were just about the 2nd Amendment, why would the speakers be enumerating particular laws against the enforcement of which people ought to be ready to use those those arms?
Are you willing to put this on the line and say that there have been no spitting incidence involving white congressmen?
I doubt there have been any incidents in which black people spat on a white Congressman and the black people were not arrested, cited or otherwise faced with legal consequences for their actions. Please let me know where we can place our 20-1 bets on this.
If you want to claim that a white woman who falsely accused black men of rape without any evidence would never receive support from the white community -- and, moreover, that like the Duke lacrosse team the black defendants would have the resources to defeat the accusations before they even went to trial -- please do, and add the 20-1 odds on it to the bet above (though in this bet, the onus is on me to find such incidents... I don't think it'll take long). Your putting money on such a thing would make up for this being totally irrelevant to the Buchanan incident.
The Tea Party is important because it is the conservatives getting off the couch for the first time ever I think.
Nope. See the Know-Nothings, John Birch Society and other predecessors. You seem pretty young, so this may be the first time conservatives have done this in your lifetime, but it's by no means the first in American history. You want to talk about spitting -- read about Adlai Stevenson's visit to Dallas just before JFK's assassination. I'll be curious to see who, if anyone, will play the William F. Buckley role in excising the Tea Party element out of mainstream conservatism (as WFB eventually did with the Birchers).
Also, there's a pretty big difference between a statement like Ted Nugent's about Obama (“He’s a piece of shit and I told him to suck on my machine gun.”) and the kind of stuff that came from black musicians regarding Bush ("George Bush doesn't care about black people" or even "Why did Bush knock down the towers"). Laura Bush has pointed out the distinction between having a political disagreement with someone -- even one in which you accuse him of bad acts -- and engaging in juvenile name-calling.
Rush and the Rev Wright are in many ways birds of a feather. Each spew the occasional venomous barb that keeps their flock happy. One simply has a bigger flock and a microphone.
Last I checked, the Obama Administration has determined none of its members should be caught dead around Rev. Wright these days. Compare that to Rush, who holds court over guests like Dick Cheney (and whose views and personality have been widely public for decades).
This goes precisely to Tim Wise's point, which you claim I haven't been addressing. In our contemporary politics black guy with non-mainstream left-wing views must be shunned, the white guy with non-mainstream right-wing views can be embraced as an important part of a political coalition.
In fact, the mere fact that Rush does have "a bigger flock" tells us something; it tells us that a wider segment of AMerican society sees him (and Beck, and Coulter, and Hannity, and all the rest) as a legitimate, respectable political voice. The double standard is Wise's point, not whether or not you can find non-Tea Partiers saying/doing comparable bullshit.
By the way, Tim Wise did provide links in his original version of this. People who have cut-and-pasted since then lost the links.
Follow the Google, eh?
Imagine that a black pastor, formerly a member of the U.S. military, were to declare, as part of his opposition to a white president’s policies, that he was ready to “suit up, get my gun, go to Washington, and do what they trained me to do.”
Rev. Jeremiah Wright, incidentally, is a former Marine and Navy Corpsman. Though I doubt he supported all of LBJ's policies, he was part of the president's medical team (cardiopulmonary technician), and to my knowledge has never suggested that he or other black veterans should take guns to Washington.
PG, thank you for the original post with links.. Now I can really get into this.
Be back tomorrow.
The link I followed did not have a link to the original. So again, thanks.
I can't respond to all of the things you wrote - not enough time - but I'll take a shot at a few.
On Ayers - Your response is the best I've seen from anyone. Filled in a few gaps. I was never one who took the Ayers thing, or Wright for that matter, as a serious concern. In the grand scheme of things, I didn't think it was all that important. There were issues, like, you know, fiscal policy and the war, that should have been talked about... and wasn't. So I never got that deep into the Ayers thing. This is what I wrote on joined, then got out something like two minutes later. I have spent much of my blog space criticizing them (see here, here, here and especially here). That said, just like when Rush and Hannity paint all gays with a broad brush because of gay pride parade silliness, NAMBLA, and yes, even the Catholic molestations, I get very annoyed when the left does the same to the bulk of those who attend the Tea Party.
Again there are some crazy, even racists who are members and attend the things, just as there are some anti-Israeli protesters who regularly attend liberal protests (I'm talking those who wish that Israel should be dissolved). But by calling the whole Tea Party movement racists, it diminishes the definition and vile nature of what racism actually is.
Must work now.
Sorry, didn't check for type-o's (sounds like a breakfast cereal).
Again, I think the point here isn't to get into a question of just how racist the average Tea Party is. Wise is interested in pointing out white privilege, so it's the media and public reaction to the Tea Party (as opposed to the closest analogs you could find among black movements and individuals) that's the issue.
The question is; what, if there really is any, is the difference between "white privileged" and the accusation of flat out racism? In the grand scheme of things, is there really a difference? And to the average layperson, could they even tell the difference? It seems like a wonderful case of splitting hairs to me.
I'll be off the web for a few days. So I'm not sure if I'll be able to respond to the next comment or two. But I will say this. At first, I thought this was just going to be a boring exercise in partisan bickering. I threw out the Ayers and Wright comment figuring I'd get the standard response. For the first time in a very long time. I was pleasantly surprised by the response. I know we will but heads on some things, and i doubt we will actually change each others minds. But I hope we can have more interesting conversations. Unlike most partisans, I get annoyed by confirmation bias. I love new information.
Talk soon
The difference is an individual can have not a racist bone in his body and still benefit from white privilege, because that hinges on societal racism writ large.
The question is; what, if there really is any, is the difference between "white privileged" and the accusation of flat out racism?
What Joe said. I think this question is indicative of a massive lack of understanding of what is meant by "privilege." As an Asian-American, I pretty much never have to deal with people's assuming that I'm in an educational institution due to affirmative action; or that I won't be useful in a study group; or that I'm bad at math. I actually *am* bad at math, which just goes to show how privilege can occasionally be a pain in the ass.
Within the narrow sphere of academia, Asian-Americans have racial privilege (I'm leaving out members of certain subgroups within the larger "Asian" racial category who, if they are recognized as being in those subgroups, sometimes don't get that privilege). That doesn't mean Asian-Americans are all racist, or even that we're the ones who hold most of the power in the system that grants us the privilege. But it does mean we should recognize this privilege we have, and that other people lack it simply because they are the wrong kind of POC. I fail to recognize this privilege when I say something like, "I don't know why my black classmates feel shy about being called on in class. I'm a minority too, and I don't mind." I'm pretending that society makes the same assumptions about Asian-Americans that it does about African-Americans -- when this is not true.
Maybe the key for a "layperson" is that if you tell me I have racial privilege over African Americans, Latinos and Native Americans, I will totally agree with you. It's just an observable fact: I do have it. If you tell me I am racist toward those groups, I am much more likely to argue with you and question how you can draw such a conclusion.
Another way of looking at privilege is that it's the reverse of discrimination. I have the privilege of not having my presence at elite institutions ascribed to affirmative action, but it's only a privilege because there are people who are so discriminated against. In the absence of the discrimination, it wouldn't be my privilege, because everyone would have it and it would just be the way things are for everyone.
Arguably, the way things are for white people -- the privileges Wise describes them as having, in terms of the freedom to hold massive gun-wielding protests and to suggest their political opponents should be lynched without being treated like lepers by their political fellows -- is the way things should be for everyone. Personally, I'm more inclined to think that this is not a privilege anyone should have; that both Tea Partiers and Black Panthers should be condemned and distanced from "mainstream" politics. But whichever it is -- whether we roll with violent rhetoric, or we disdain it -- it shouldn't be treated differently based on the race of the speaker.
Sorry I've been gone for so long.
I fail to recognize this privilege when I say something like, "I don't know why my black classmates feel shy about being called on in class. I'm a minority too, and I don't mind."
OK, but if I took that same quote out of context, it could easily be turn into a racists remark. I'm not a fan of hers, but I see the same done to Michell Malkin all the time. Is she usually a nut. Yes (though compared to the likes Ann Coulter, she's quite sane).
One of the things that jumps out at me over this issue we've been talking about is the rampant use of stereotypes to bolster Wise's points. I have a degree in telecommunications, specializing in media and media production. This includes intense studies of the use of the Lowest Common Denominator in characterizing various groups in media (TV, movies) in order to make them more palatable to the general public, i.e. a mostly white audience. We've dumbed down our perceptions of various racial groups - black, white asian, whatever - through the use of stereotypes.
Here is the thing though, it isn't just a white problem - every group does it. Look at shows aimed at various minority audiences. George Lopez, who co-writes and produces his show, is very stereotypical in its humor. Same with the slew of show that appeared on the CW when it was trying to capture the black demographic as its main audience, i.e. "narrowcasting".
I guess my problem with Wise, and a lot of critics who condemn the Tea Party, and conservatives in general, seem to be coming from that same type of place; where they don't really know what the other side thinks, but simply goes on assumptions and stereotypes. I live in a very conservative area, the California Central Valley, and walk among conservative folk. And because I run a business where I get to meet and talk to a lot of people (pool service / spa repair)
I have a lot of first hand knowledge of the conservative mind. Yes there are many who are twisted into thought processes, based on the blind, often ignorant ranting of the Rush / Hannity / Beck brainwash machine, which relies on the use of stereotypes against liberals....
OK. I lost my train of thought.
I guess what I'm trying to say is to be careful not to let someone else do your thinking for you. Wise has some good valid points. But don't be afraid to inquire and actually converse with people from the Tea Party. I think you'll be surprised that most are not nearly as fringe as you've been led to believe.
Post a Comment