My picks: The best humor, web-sites and videos culled from cyberspace • An occasional song or two • Your comments and opinions • Entertaining controversy from a parallax perspective
First not all tea party members are white, though a majority, some are black, Hispanic, Asian etc.
Second where do AK47’s and handguns fit in? Jim is distorting the facts. It is illegal to carry a firearm in DC. The protesters who were in DC were unarmed. It is legal to carry a firearm in Virginia provided you have a license to carry. And this was a Second Amendment protest – not a tea party protest. – From a CNN article “Pratt was one of the speakers at the Second Amendment March in Washington on Monday. The crowd -- made up almost entirely of men -- used language about war and fighting. But when pressed, they are quick to point out they don't mean actual armed violence.” This had absolutely nothing to do with race so why does Jim Wise include this.
And how does the author know that the alleged tea party protesters who used racially charged language with several black congressmen were actually tea part members. After all, Jason Levin who founded crashtheteaparty.org writes that their mission is simple – it is to “infiltrate and dismantle” the tea party movement from the inside out. He urges members to impersonate tea party supporters and portray them as right wing extremists in front of the news cameras in order to discredit their cause. And there are other anti tea party groups who imply similar tactics on their websites.
And yes people like Limbaugh, Michael Savage and the nut bag Anne Coulter have made dissenting remarks. Some not worded quite right and some just down right stupid. Yet it seems ok for Jeremiah Wright to bash “whitie” and damn the country. It’s ok when Obama supporters wear t-shirts calling Sarah Palin a cunt. No big deal when Lance Baxter (voice of Geico) leaves a voice mail message on the Freedomworks answering machine asking what "the percentage of people that are mentally retarded who are working for FreedomWorks and who are following it," and later refers to them as potential murderers.
No one complained when the media and the left wing wackos spent years bashing Bush and his supporters. And the derogatory and demeaning remarks from people like Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan and other black activists went without challenge.
During Hillary’s campaign she urged her supporters to dissent and stated very loud and clearly that it is their patriotic duty to protest. Seems she forgot to say that it is a one way street.
Now to take all of this bologna and try to make it a racial issue is ludicrous. I do not condone the tea party movement but I have listened to their grievences. They are not protesting a black man – they are protesting the direction he is trying to take this country in. They are not pushing a racist agenda – they are pushing for less government control.
It is people like Tim Wise who are trying to make this about race
Well-written and well thought-out response, Rich. But...
I don't think the author's main point was to say what's good or bad- or right or wrong- with the Tea Party protesters. He was simply saying that if the protesters were a different color than white, the reaction and perception across America would be dramatically different and very intense. If you disagree with that premise, then you really have wasted a lot of space, time and energy- because you would be 100% wrong.
(Before you respond defensively, again I will say that I think your piece is on target factually.) You just got your panties in a snit because Tim Wise was using the Tea Party protests to make his point, and you took it (politically) personally.
LOL – “have the integrity” to say I was wrong - priceless
No Charles I understood his point perfectly and unfortunately I do agree with the premise that black (or Arab) protesters would be viewed differently by our society under the scenario that Jim puts forward. Just as a mob of white, hooded, armed protestors waiving nazi flags would be viewed differently. The million man march did not create a backlash against blacks (yes there were a few nut bag racists who made rude comments) but the million man march was a peaceful demonstration, it was not under a scenario as Jim Wise put forth.
Again I do agree with his premise but find his way of putting it forward to be wrong. Why did he have to bring up guns? Believe it or not there are black member of the NRA, I know two whom I have talked with at my local range. I could argue the point that he is exploiting the stereotype of armed blacks living in the hood. There are still too many bigots and narrow minded people in this world for me. And I believe that part of the reason they exist is because many politicians and journalists tie race to issues where race really isn’t a factor. Just as I believe he did in this article. Al Sharpton stated that anyone against the health care bill was a racist. All his statement did was add fuel to the fire. I don’t care if Jim Wise used the tea partiers, the boy scouts or the National Association of Broadcasters I feel it’s the way he tries to make his point that is wrong.
Let’s face the facts here Charles, there is a large percentage of people in this country with IQ levels quite a bit below yours. And I can see them reading this and tying the tea party people, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan etc. to racist issues. Trust me I have a brother in law and sister in law who fit this description and I find it amazing how easily they are influenced. Our local paper carries a satire column on Sundays, I was appalled to discover they were interpreting this as news.
So you can say I have no integrity but I won’t say I was wrong. Perhaps I wasn’t quite clear on my point and for that I will apologize.
rich:
I may have told you this before, but I am truly delighted to have you as a contributor to my blog. You are pretty much the opposite of me in the way you would solve our mutual civic problems, but it is a pleasure to debate someone who is grounded and argues with logic and clarity. Thanks
Thank you for not shouting, Rich and Charles. This note is off the top of my head, so there are bound to be mistakes for which I am taking blame initially, hoping readers will understand.
First, I think the unfortunate overwhelming gist of this discussion involves the "Tea Party" group itself, when in fact the Tea Party group is only one element of the Alternet post. I saw the point as I read that post as being that the question being asked needs to be asked. "What if the Tea Party were black?" is but a facet of the image Tim Wise is portraying about generally mild public reaction to the lockstep intransigence and fear-mongering, low-frequency drumbeat of hard right conservative rhetoric in the United States. The fact that it hasn't changed much since Lyndon Johnson was president, that these folks have always claimed "their country" is being "ruined" seems to follow in the footsteps of integration, and all but a very few of the more conservative folks who follow the rhetoric are white.
The Tea Party isn't this: http://www.boston-tea-party.org/resources/list.html . To claim the release of power by those who hold it and which had to be coerced through legislation and court decision over the past forty years, as conservative writers and broadcasters have, i.e. characterized as similar to the near opposite motive of the second-class American colonists, is utter falsehood. Read about it. The American Revolution continues when oppressed people are freed, not when those who hold power and are regulated as a result are given the mantle of being "true patriots". What the Tea Party of today wants is couched as a revolt against unfair taxation by a distant overlord. Barack Obama and the millions of people who elected him democratically and peacefully are the real protest, that being against the false "sagebrush" Reagan lead "freedom" from regulation that leads to things like coal mining disasters and the insane proliferation of gas guzzling SUVs not subject to CAFE standards that during the eighties and nineties were but a symptom of the thinking that lead to the wars of the two Bushes. It's all about selfishness and greed, and to claim that right wing intransigence is patriotic is anything but. The "Tea Party" portion of the many points made by Tim Wise bring home that fact, and that's why that one example was used in the headline of a post containing many other examples of the "convoluted" way the various listed conservatives wave "their" flag.
The point is that screaming about taking your country back invites the question "from whom?" Anyone who isn't you? Anyone who works a hard day and wants to live through it knowing his own health and safety is as important to his government as is the well being of vastly wealthy banks, businesses and their chiefs? Is that who has "your" country right now? That is Tim Wise's thrust, that simply switching the races in the story lines serves to point out the logical flaw in conservative protest movements that claim they are following the lead of Sam Adams.
Comments
What convoluted logic.
First not all tea party members are white, though a majority, some are black, Hispanic, Asian etc.
Second where do AK47’s and handguns fit in? Jim is distorting the facts. It is illegal to carry a firearm in DC. The protesters who were in DC were unarmed. It is legal to carry a firearm in Virginia provided you have a license to carry. And this was a Second Amendment protest – not a tea party protest. – From a CNN article “Pratt was one of the speakers at the Second Amendment March in Washington on Monday. The crowd -- made up almost entirely of men -- used language about war and fighting. But when pressed, they are quick to point out they don't mean actual armed violence.” This had absolutely nothing to do with race so why does Jim Wise include this.
And how does the author know that the alleged tea party protesters who used racially charged language with several black congressmen were actually tea part members. After all, Jason Levin who founded crashtheteaparty.org writes that their mission is simple – it is to “infiltrate and dismantle” the tea party movement from the inside out. He urges members to impersonate tea party supporters and portray them as right wing extremists in front of the news cameras in order to discredit their cause. And there are other anti tea party groups who imply similar tactics on their websites.
And yes people like Limbaugh, Michael Savage and the nut bag Anne Coulter have made dissenting remarks. Some not worded quite right and some just down right stupid. Yet it seems ok for Jeremiah Wright to bash “whitie” and damn the country. It’s ok when Obama supporters wear t-shirts calling Sarah Palin a cunt. No big deal when Lance Baxter (voice of Geico) leaves a voice mail message on the Freedomworks answering machine asking what "the percentage of people that are mentally retarded who are working for FreedomWorks and who are following it," and later refers to them as potential murderers.
No one complained when the media and the left wing wackos spent years bashing Bush and his supporters. And the derogatory and demeaning remarks from people like Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan and other black activists went without challenge.
During Hillary’s campaign she urged her supporters to dissent and stated very loud and clearly that it is their patriotic duty to protest. Seems she forgot to say that it is a one way street.
Now to take all of this bologna and try to make it a racial issue is ludicrous. I do not condone the tea party movement but I have listened to their grievences. They are not protesting a black man – they are protesting the direction he is trying to take this country in. They are not pushing a racist agenda – they are pushing for less government control.
It is people like Tim Wise who are trying to make this about race
Posted by: Rich | April 29, 2010 10:36 AM
Well-written and well thought-out response, Rich. But...
I don't think the author's main point was to say what's good or bad- or right or wrong- with the Tea Party protesters. He was simply saying that if the protesters were a different color than white, the reaction and perception across America would be dramatically different and very intense. If you disagree with that premise, then you really have wasted a lot of space, time and energy- because you would be 100% wrong.
(Before you respond defensively, again I will say that I think your piece is on target factually.) You just got your panties in a snit because Tim Wise was using the Tea Party protests to make his point, and you took it (politically) personally.
Posted by: Charles Laquidara | April 29, 2010 11:09 AM
LOL – “have the integrity” to say I was wrong - priceless
No Charles I understood his point perfectly and unfortunately I do agree with the premise that black (or Arab) protesters would be viewed differently by our society under the scenario that Jim puts forward. Just as a mob of white, hooded, armed protestors waiving nazi flags would be viewed differently. The million man march did not create a backlash against blacks (yes there were a few nut bag racists who made rude comments) but the million man march was a peaceful demonstration, it was not under a scenario as Jim Wise put forth.
Again I do agree with his premise but find his way of putting it forward to be wrong. Why did he have to bring up guns? Believe it or not there are black member of the NRA, I know two whom I have talked with at my local range. I could argue the point that he is exploiting the stereotype of armed blacks living in the hood. There are still too many bigots and narrow minded people in this world for me. And I believe that part of the reason they exist is because many politicians and journalists tie race to issues where race really isn’t a factor. Just as I believe he did in this article. Al Sharpton stated that anyone against the health care bill was a racist. All his statement did was add fuel to the fire. I don’t care if Jim Wise used the tea partiers, the boy scouts or the National Association of Broadcasters I feel it’s the way he tries to make his point that is wrong.
Let’s face the facts here Charles, there is a large percentage of people in this country with IQ levels quite a bit below yours. And I can see them reading this and tying the tea party people, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan etc. to racist issues. Trust me I have a brother in law and sister in law who fit this description and I find it amazing how easily they are influenced. Our local paper carries a satire column on Sundays, I was appalled to discover they were interpreting this as news.
So you can say I have no integrity but I won’t say I was wrong. Perhaps I wasn’t quite clear on my point and for that I will apologize.
Posted by: rich | April 29, 2010 12:15 PM
rich:
I may have told you this before, but I am truly delighted to have you as a contributor to my blog. You are pretty much the opposite of me in the way you would solve our mutual civic problems, but it is a pleasure to debate someone who is grounded and argues with logic and clarity. Thanks
Posted by: Charles Laquidara | April 29, 2010 2:18 PM
Thank you for not shouting, Rich and Charles. This note is off the top of my head, so there are bound to be mistakes for which I am taking blame initially, hoping readers will understand.
First, I think the unfortunate overwhelming gist of this discussion involves the "Tea Party" group itself, when in fact the Tea Party group is only one element of the Alternet post. I saw the point as I read that post as being that the question being asked needs to be asked. "What if the Tea Party were black?" is but a facet of the image Tim Wise is portraying about generally mild public reaction to the lockstep intransigence and fear-mongering, low-frequency drumbeat of hard right conservative rhetoric in the United States. The fact that it hasn't changed much since Lyndon Johnson was president, that these folks have always claimed "their country" is being "ruined" seems to follow in the footsteps of integration, and all but a very few of the more conservative folks who follow the rhetoric are white.
The Tea Party isn't this: http://www.boston-tea-party.org/resources/list.html . To claim the release of power by those who hold it and which had to be coerced through legislation and court decision over the past forty years, as conservative writers and broadcasters have, i.e. characterized as similar to the near opposite motive of the second-class American colonists, is utter falsehood. Read about it. The American Revolution continues when oppressed people are freed, not when those who hold power and are regulated as a result are given the mantle of being "true patriots". What the Tea Party of today wants is couched as a revolt against unfair taxation by a distant overlord. Barack Obama and the millions of people who elected him democratically and peacefully are the real protest, that being against the false "sagebrush" Reagan lead "freedom" from regulation that leads to things like coal mining disasters and the insane proliferation of gas guzzling SUVs not subject to CAFE standards that during the eighties and nineties were but a symptom of the thinking that lead to the wars of the two Bushes. It's all about selfishness and greed, and to claim that right wing intransigence is patriotic is anything but. The "Tea Party" portion of the many points made by Tim Wise bring home that fact, and that's why that one example was used in the headline of a post containing many other examples of the "convoluted" way the various listed conservatives wave "their" flag.
The point is that screaming about taking your country back invites the question "from whom?" Anyone who isn't you? Anyone who works a hard day and wants to live through it knowing his own health and safety is as important to his government as is the well being of vastly wealthy banks, businesses and their chiefs? Is that who has "your" country right now? That is Tim Wise's thrust, that simply switching the races in the story lines serves to point out the logical flaw in conservative protest movements that claim they are following the lead of Sam Adams.
Posted by: Steve S | April 29, 2010 8:00 PM