What If the Tea Party Were Black?

[Zahir]

That is the premise behind a blog post that can be found here: ephphatha-poetry.blogspot.com/2010/04/i ... mment-form.

Some quotes:

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?

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.

Imagine that black protesters at a large political rally were walking around with signs calling for the lynching of their congressional enemies.

In other words, imagine that even one-third of the anger and vitriol currently being hurled at President Obama, by folks who are almost exclusively white, were being aimed, instead, at a white president, by people of color. How many whites viewing the anger, the hatred, the contempt for that white president would then wax eloquent about free speech, and the glories of democracy? And how many would be calling for further crackdowns on thuggish behavior, and investigations into the radical agendas of those same people of color?

[finn]

Careful Zahir, the Emperor is very fond of his new clothes.....!

[SerScot]

Zahir,

It's good to see someone else I know.



As to your post and the blog entry isn't it painting with a rather broad brush? If a minorty of a predominantely peaceful protest movement made up largely of African-Americans were engaged in reprehensible behavior I sincerely hope the rest of that movement wouldn't be painted with the actions of the few.

[Rawedge Rim]

And you do see things like that at black rallies, and hispanic rallies, and Lord knows, white gatherings. Get enough people together and you will get a couple of assholes who will also show up.

Didn't Jay Z or someone say that President Bush purposely delayed aid to New Orleans because the people there were mostly black?

[Zarathustra]

I'm not sure if I understand the point (granted, I didn't read the link). Are we supposed to conclude that since most people would (allegedly) view a black tea party as violent, that we should (if we were being consistent) also view the "white" tea party as violent, too? If that's the case, I think the question itself is more racist than its own conclusion. I don't think there is anything about the color of one's skin that makes their protest look more violent than anyone else. If the "white" tea party is actually violent, you should be able to demonstrate that without a thought experiment.

[High Lord Tolkien]

That is the premise behind a blog post that can be found here: ephphatha-poetry.blogspot.com/2010/04/i ... mment-form.

Some quotes:

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.

This was later proved false.
That congressman later took back his words.

Imagine that black protesters at a large political rally were walking around with signs calling for the lynching of their congressional enemies.

Did this happen? I can't recall seeing any lynching signs at Tea Parties.

In other words, imagine that even one-third of the anger and vitriol currently being hurled at President Obama, by folks who are almost exclusively white, were being aimed, instead, at a white president, by people of color. How many whites viewing the anger, the hatred, the contempt for that white president would then wax eloquent about free speech, and the glories of democracy? And how many would be calling for further crackdowns on thuggish behavior, and investigations into the radical agendas of those same people of color?

In other words let take a liberal-masturbation-fantasy that the Tea Party is evil and try to flip it back on something it doesn't compare to anyway.

That article is a joke.

[Zahir]

It is interesting how some people are missing the point of the article (not least those who comment upon it never having read the thing). Or dismiss it with cherry-picking quotations. Mind you, everywhere I've posted that link I've seen precisely the same reaction--from some.

[High Lord Tolkien]

It is interesting how some people are missing the point of the article (not least those who comment upon it never having read the thing). Or dismiss it with cherry-picking quotations. Mind you, everywhere I've posted that link I've seen precisely the same reaction--from some.

I got the point, I thought the premise was bogus.
"cherry pick"? you cherry picked the article you quoted!
I usually respond only to what I'm familiar with.
I didn't respond to some vague reference to a right wing commentator because I don't know who is being talked about.
I attacked the article you posted not the poster ie: you.
It's unfortunate that you can't do the same.

[Avatar]

Down guys.

Zahir, nice to see you around. (Serscot, you know Zahir?)

However, if we're missing the point, why not let us know what the point is?

So far, it seems to me that the point is that the tea parties alleged behaviour would be considered unacceptable if somebody else were doing it?

If that is the case, I agree with Z that evidence of such behaviour should be available, (is it?) and if it were, such behaviour would be unacceptable no matter who was doing it.

(As for the comment that nearly all opponents of Obama are white, I'd expect it since 80-odd percent of your population is white.)

The possibly unintentional implication could be seen as being that any opposition to Obama must necessarily be racist, which obviously is not the case.

--A

[finn]

The possibly unintentional implication could be seen as being that any opposition to Obama must necessarily be racist, which obviously is not the case.

....equally tho' its not necessarily not racist either!

[SerScot]

Finn,

What I think is rather insidious about the article is that it 1) presumes a mass protest movement from African-Americans would, today, result in a massive overreaction and police push back to quash that movement; and 2) implies that because there hasn't been an overreaction and police push back against the tea party protests the US is racist.

[Rawedge Rim]

It is interesting how some people are missing the point of the article (not least those who comment upon it never having read the thing). Or dismiss it with cherry-picking quotations. Mind you, everywhere I've posted that link I've seen precisely the same reaction--from some.

I'm not missing anything, I read the article, and while I'm not gonna say that a number of white americans might become alarmed if something like that were to happen, I'll burn that bridge when I get to it.

Frankly I remember the "Million Man March", and Loius Farrakan preaching how "whitey" need to be supplanted. There are those out there in the various "minority" groups who act this way, and many more that don't.

What am I supposed to take from this article, that Whitey doesn't see the world the same way when it's Whitey doing it?

[finn]

Finn,

What I think is rather insidious about the article is that it 1) presumes a mass protest movement from African-Americans would, today, result in a massive overreaction and police push back to quash that movement; and 2) implies that because there hasn't been an overreaction and police push back against the tea party protests the US is racist.

I don't think it insidious at all: its assertions are right up front for all to see. What I think it is trying to say without completely losing deniability, is that there is a far greater amount of racism in the US than people are prepared to admit. I think it further hints that a lot of the criticism of Obama is generated as much by his colour as by his policy. I think this is an elephant in the room in the US.

[Vraith]

What am I supposed to take from this article, that Whitey doesn't see the world the same way when it's Whitey doing it?

This is pretty much what I got from it [some of it was stretching a bit, but some were right on target]
...and he's right...if you change not one thing except the race, the social/media/political/op-ed/public opinion/ any measure you want to make changes.

[SerScot]

Finn,

Finn,

What I think is rather insidious about the article is that it 1) presumes a mass protest movement from African-Americans would, today, result in a massive overreaction and police push back to quash that movement; and 2) implies that because there hasn't been an overreaction and police push back against the tea party protests the US is racist.

I don't think it insidious at all: its assertions are right up front for all to see. What I think it is trying to say without completely losing deniability, is that there is a far greater amount of racism in the US than people are prepared to admit. I think it further hints that a lot of the criticism of Obama is generated as much by his colour as by his policy. I think this is an elephant in the room in the US.

Your point is well made. My problem is that I don't accept either premise. There is racism in the US to deny that would be to foolish. However, to claim a mass protest movement among African-American's with a tiny minorty of that movement doing stupid things would result in a 60's style police crack down I simply cannot accept. To accept that would be to say the US is in the same place as the Jim Crow south in the 1960s. That is simply not true.

[Zarathustra]

It is interesting how some people are missing the point of the article (not least those who comment upon it never having read the thing). Or dismiss it with cherry-picking quotations. Mind you, everywhere I've posted that link I've seen precisely the same reaction--from some.

Well, it's not hard to miss the point when one doesn't read it. I'm not trying to hide the fact that I didn't read it. My first sentence admitted both these facts. You are free to correct my impression, whenever you're done talking about how interesting my reaction is. Frankly, I don't think there's very much interesting here at all (in either your quotes from the blog or your responses). Which is why I didn't bother to read it. Worse than that, I think the question itself makes racists assumptions, and it has a racist agenda.

What I think it is trying to say without completely losing deniability, is that there is a far greater amount of racism in the US than people are prepared to admit. I think it further hints that a lot of the criticism of Obama is generated as much by his colour as by his policy. I think this is an elephant in the room in the US.

So even after we vote for our first black President, we still have to get preached at and talked down to from people on the other side of the planet. God I love this thread.

We know there are racists in our country. Many of them are black (one of them Obama's former "spiritual advisor"). And many of them are white. Some of them are from India. Some of them are from Mexico. You really think you're telling us something we don't know?

The criticisms against Obama aren't new. We criticize every De-mo-crat for similar things. And it's not new that the De-mo-crats respond with ad hominem attacks, rather than face the criticism. (Just look at this thread.) It's a way to dismiss critics as bigots and racists so that their criticism can be ignored and maligned. Obama supporters want this to be true. They want to think of anyone who disagrees with them as "bad." That's why they sit around and fantasize about things like a Black Tea Party, and then make snarky comments about people who bother to respond to the lame thought experiment.

What percentage of the critics are racists, in your opinion? How big is the elephant?

[Cybrweez]

Yea, and there's alot more racism in the rest of the world that no one even attempts to start looking at. Probably b/c there's not as much assimiliation in those other areas, nothing like the scale here in America. At least we're trying...

And if it's not race, its religion, language, politics, soccer (sorry, football), whatever. But it probably helps others to point out racism in America, makes them superior, helps hide the elephant in their room.

[Avatar]

And if it's not race, its religion, language, politics, soccer (sorry, football), whatever.

Ain't that the truth.

Still, Z asked a fair question...what percentage of the criticism is racist? (I don't see any way to answer it, but it's a legitimate question.

--A

[Vraith]

Hmmm....I may have to read it again, maybe I missed something, but I didn't see the main point as being "The Tea-party is racist," or "Obama's critics are racists"...I thought it was "If the people doing/saying these things were black, the political/cultural/media 'take' on it would be much different."
Those are not the same thing.
And if my reading is correct, the point is true.
But, maybe I did misread.

[SerScot]

Vraith,

Hmmm....I may have to read it again, maybe I missed something, but I didn't see the main point as being "The Tea-party is racist," or "Obama's critics are racists"...I thought it was "If the people doing/saying these things were black, the political/cultural/media 'take' on it would be much different."
Those are not the same thing.
And if my reading is correct, the point is true.
But, maybe I did misread.

For that article to have validity it rests upon the assumption that if a protest movement made up largely of African-Americans were to do the same things Tea Party protesters are accused of doing the US public would never tolerate it and would brand that entire movement with the actions of a very few in that movement.

I don't accept that premise. This is not to say there are no racists among the Tea Party protesters but that damning all of them for the actions of a few of them is wrong as it would have been wrong to damn all anti-war protesters for the actions of a few of those protesters.