The Tea Party Movement and the "Race Card"

If an adult black man is called 'boy', that's racist, except to those who don't know their history. Miller is scared, so he won't say it - score one for the Tea Party. The way you try to weasle your way out of it by demanding some sort of unobtainable absolute proof is indicative of the way this new and very dangerous form of racism spreads.

Participating in this thread has only confirmed to me that the Tea Party Movement is a safe haven for racists. For the rest, this is not my turf, and I don't really know what I'm doing here. We have similar issues in my own country and it makes more sense for me to focus on that; Watto out.

 

I'm sorry, but I reject the idea that the act, in and of itself, constitutes proof of the intent behind the act. There are enough ignorant people out there that it's really quite a leap from the specific act to the intent behind it.

Perhaps I'm just more aware of such things because of my experience being accused of intentions I never had. The experience with my friend when I was in second or third grade (I can't remember which part of the year it was) really did have a big impact on me. More than anything, it taught me that you can't just assume that you know someone else's intentions, and people can do things out of ignorance that are incredibly hurtful.

Kimball Kinnison

 

KK, my participation here on these forums, as well as observing the actions of the political left outside this forum, has left me with the conclusion that they do NOT want debate or discussion. If anything, it is the opposite. They want us to shut up, roll over, and . Over the last few months on this forum, someone has pronounced a movement that he has disagreements with on the health care bill, taxes, and federal spending as racist. Michael Moore says that gun ownership is because a person is racist.

You see - every issue seems to have some form of racial component. To paraphrase that line from the Incredibles: If every issue involves race, then race isn't an issue. They've defined racism down to the point that saying, "I think taxes are too high" is now proof that you are a racist.

The arguments against the Tea Party strike me as coming from either desperation or delusion. To talk of people with pitchforks, or to play the race card over a dispute on taxes and social spending, just does not have any other explanation, if you ask me. Unable to win the argument over taxes and spending with FACTS, they need something else - and so they play the race card while also stoking fears of social unrest.

 

To be fair to Kimball's point, even if it is somewhat insane logic, the blame for this mess can be the entirely confusing way our culture has used these words. In fact I remember quite clearly in the early 90's calling someone someone else's 'boy' was a sign of being someone's close friend, I was even called such at one point. So it's not his fault his reasoning is a bit silly. Just that we have so many meanings for so many words. Like gay. Gay can mean happy, someone's homosexual, or if you're an idiot gamer, that something is really stupid. So, while I do believe that the racist jerk who said someone was 'McCain's boy,' was being racist--the blame for the confusion goes entirely on our culture.

By the way, Kimball, it doesn't take much searching to find that 'boy' does have a racist connotation to it and that some people do use it that way. So yes, you can know a person's intent by their context. We can also surmise a lot by what we know about the person. Like so: If he's a white dude who's never uttered slang before--then it's a fairly good assumption that when he says 'boy' he means it in a racist way. I agree that assumptions can be bad and sometimes they lead us astray, but overall they're useful when you don't know the person intimately. And even when you do know the person personally, an assumption is usually all you can work on. Therefore your experience has taught you to be cautious at your own peril.


Linky

 

I was going to leave this thread, but I can't leave this untorpedoed.

1. I'm not left
2. Generalization
3. Generalization
4. Wrong, safe haven
5. What's he got to do with anything?
6. Death threats are a delusion?

 

There is a big problem with the "safe haven" argument, and it's been addressed many times already.

The Tea Party movement is a largely unorganized group of smaller organizations that generally agree on the issues of reducing taxes and cutting spending, with a side issue of reducing regulation of business as well. Within that general purpose, you get people of all stripes.

By the same reasoning, you could argue that the anti-war movement is a safe haven for any number of extremist attitudes. Some people are part of the anti-war movement because they are pacifists. Others join because they are against the military-industrial complex. Still others join because they want to reduce or eliminate the US's influence in world affairs. Another group might join because they oppose the current president or his party, and want to weaken their political position. Some others could be anarchists and just enjoy protesting the government.

Any time that you get a decentralized organization, it can act as a "safe haven" for people who hold unsavory views unrelated to the organization's focus. To eject people from an organization, you need to have a more authoritarian structure that movements like the Tea Party and ant anti-war movement lack. Complaining that it can act as a "safe haven" for racists is like saying that anti-war protests in WWII were safe havens for anti-Semites. It does nothing more than smear the movement as a whole for the unrelated actions of a few who associate themselves with it.

Kimball Kinnison

 

As I said, it's your country. Good luck!

 

Correct. When a society is built on institutionalized racism, then every issue has a racial component. I'm glad you've finally figured that out.

 

Smuggler honestly reminds me of Daveykins. He really does.

 

Here's what a brain trust among 'baggers looks like.

Good to know teabaggers really care only about economic issues. Yeah, suffice to say I wouldn't trust any of these cretins with a small child let alone the entirety of the US government. I will say this: If the debt ceiling isn't raised then we'll be in good company of places with hyperinflation like Zimbabwe. 'Conservative Republicans': The next best thing to a rectal exam that there is.

Anyway, I do fully believe they're a haven for racists. And while you can make a good case that 'it could apply to anything'...yeah...you're wrong. That's me correcting you. As for Smuggler, well...we know his rants are crazy. Why do they keep getting responses? I mean, it's like picking on the mentally challenged kid in class. Sure, it may seem like a good way to pass the time, but in the end it only lowers you as a person.

 

I don't think the Tea Party has a good case for what they believe in. Sure, cutting the deficit is necessary so that our nation doesn't go bankrupt, but the Tea Party doesn't focus on this as a serious issue that should be addressed....rather they blame liberals as tax-and-spend big government bogeymen, and therefore they rightfully earn themselves their reputation as fanatical demagogues. Look at Jerry Brown, there's a whole world of difference between his attitude towards California's budget crisis, and the one that the Tea Party takes towards our national deficit.

 

So do personal jabs, FIDo. I disagree with posters like Smuggler pretty fundamentally, too, but taking personal shots like these aren't appropriate.

 

It's not a personal shot, really. That was an analogy. And the closest thing to it with regards to the Senate.

Edit: And show me a post of his that isn't all deranged and hateful and I'll retract it. Otherwise the analogy is appropriate.

 

Eh, you're categorizing his posts as crazy rants and making analogies to picking on someone with mental challenges. That's not respectful discourse. I wouldn't appreciate my posts being categorized as such, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't appreciate it either. He backs up his posts with sources and his reasoning is consistent - that's not crazy. I worked with crazy for several years, and while I disagree with him on nearly everything we discuss here, I don't see the necessity of drawing a correlation with mental illness. Passion and staunch ideological allegiance =/= crazy. It's entirely possible to critique the source or the strain of argument without attacking him.

 

Crazy is ranting about a homosexual agenda. Crazy is accusing liberals of playing the race card because they happen to point out racism. Also, crazy could be defined as trying to reply to that dribble in a rational manner when it clearly is not. Respectful discourse is fine when you know your counterpart will be respectful. In this case, his posts never have and never will be respectful to the other side of the argument. Therefore...the posts seem crazypants.

 

I think racism should be the least of the concerns regarding the Tea Party. Even if there are racists among them, it's not worth nitpicking over. The problem with the Tea Party isn't that they're racist, it's that they're rabid conservative conspiracy theorists.

 

Eh? How can anyone be that? It's a contradiction in terms unless conservatives are now claiming to be radical revolutionaries, in which case, they ain't conservative!

 

FID, you have a broad definition of crazy. But I don't mind being called crazy. Or boy, for that matter. Crazy boy.

 

Well, traditionally I take the view that 'crazy' is trying the same thing over and expecting different results. So, it's quite appropriate for this conversation.

 

Quix, thanks for making an effort to be the voice of reason. The racism/Tea Party issue is challenging and difficult enough without the personal attacks.

JS, Kimball, as FID's link from a few pages back proves, Tea Party adherents are more than willing to make race politics part of their agenda at the local level at least. There is a reasonable suspicion that those uncontrollable extremists in the Tea Party midst you reference Kimball are having, and will continue to have, a significant influence on the Tea Party movement that will inevitably surface into state, local and the national political agendas.

That's why it looks to everyone outside it like an Angry Middle Class White Person mob, the frightened, economically beleaguered white working class lower tier of the Republican party, betrayed as usual by its richer brethren, compelled in difficult times to lash out inappropriately at those even lower on the socioeconomic ladder. Consequently, and with a great deal of common sense, African Americans, Hispanic/Latin Americans and ethnic minorities of all kinds will continue to view the Tea Party with the reasonable suspicion it deserves on issues of race, diversity and equality of opportunity.

 

Except I pointed out a number of explanations to terminate the bussing plan that had nothing to do with race at all.

I could think of several reasons to have kids attend neighborhood schools as opposed to having them go across the county to a school: Saving money on gas, needing fewer busses, providing more time for the kids to do homework because they aren't riding a bus for an hour or more each way. Heck, if you have kids attend the closest school, a lot more can WALK there, and that means they get some exercise. And the money saved from not needing so many busses, or having to buy less gas, and not needing to maintain them as much due to normal wear and tear means you might be able to focus those resources elsewhere, like maybe hiring more teachers, or fixing the problems that lead to 46% of poor kids dropping out in the first place.

Also, the same article reported, "And many suburban parents have complained that their children are being reassigned from one school to the next."

Now, I don't know about you, but I'd be upset about having my kids reassigned from school to school on a yearly basis. Also, I'd want to know why my child would have to be bussed to a school 5 or ten miles away when there might be a school three blocks away that they could walk to - unless there was a compelling reason (like my child was entering a magnet school OR was in need of assistance at another school. Race would have nothing to do with it.

And for you to argue that it does - without addressing the arguments presented - leads me to believe that the cries of racism are nothing but a political tool because you are losing the argument otherwise. It only leads me to believe that you are willing to traffic in smears, and as such, that you don't have serious arguments to bring to the table. In addition, I see little reason to be civil to those who I think are lying about me to try to score political points.

 

It's simply not the case that those of us who promote meaningful equality of opportunity have "lost the argument." But we have indeed lost the policy war. For thirty years now the U.S. has been backsliding on de facto segregation and all but given up on equal access to quality education. The final death of affirmative action and public school desegregation will have its consequences a generation from now, although I imagine we will begin to feel the effects much sooner.

There are consequences for a politics that draws so much of its energy from hate. To the extent that the Tea Party is well intentioned but simply deluded in the way it is committing suicide for the working middle class as it lashes out at the poor, minorities and immigrants, I feel tremendous sorrow, sympathy and pity for all my fellow Americans who have been caught up in the movement. You've hurt all of us, but not as much as you've hurt yourselves. I mean that in a straightforward economic and social sense as well as a broader karmic sense.