The Tea Party is Not Racist

[Mumbles]

So you thought it is wrong to attribute negative characteristics to a large group of people due to the actions of a minority and then attributed negative characteristics to a large group of people due to the actions of a minority.

Well, except that the video clearly shows nobody laughing when Sherrod when she discusses the way she initially treats the farmer. So it's also refusing to call Williams a racist despite his repeated racist behavior, and then making thingsup in order to portray the NAACP as racist.

 

[Juniversal]

Do you honestly think the NAACP doesn't attract racist elements? It's very name suggests that it might attract them. And I think a videoclip that shows its black members recently laughing at a story of reverse racism might support that concern.

Is the NAACP a "movement" as the Tea Party claims to be? Or is it an organization? And what in the hell is reverse racism? Racism is racism. And it seems "some of the NAACP members chuckled while she was telling her story" is the last thing conservatives have to cling on to in a weak attempt to make the story seem to have SOME validity to it. Very weak.

Furthermore, contrary to what you claim, the NAACP claimed more than just that the Tea Party attracts racists. Their announcement stated the Tea Party needed to "repudiate the racism of the Tea Parties, not just the racism of a very small number of it's members. "Inherent" in that language is the assumption that the Tea Party is racist. In their resolution, they also accused the Tea Party of racism based on the unproven racebaiting accusations made by those black caucus congressmen I mentioned earlier. In doing so, they are guilty of promoting reverse racism. Using false accusations of racism is reverse racism. Plain and simple.

Again what is this "reverse racism" you speak of? Racism is racism. And if you want to interpret their statement as implying the entire movement is racist then so be it but the statement definately didn't explicity indict the entire tea party as racist.

And you should realize that videotaped evidence of it's members laughing at reverse racism during the telling of Sherrod's story isn't the only instance one could point to involving the NAACP that suggests it might "tolerate" reverse racism of the sort that Sherrod was talking about in it's ranks. In fact, if you looked at Sherrod's complete video, you see Sherrod making a plea, not to the Tea Party, but to NAACP members to not do what she did years ago, but to work for racial conciliation instead. Why did she do that? Presumably she made this plea because she thought the attitude of reverse racism might be found amongst people in her audience (all members of NAACP) . Else why say it?

Reverse racism again? Really? And you seem intent on pushing this idea that the one time the audience members chuckled during her story some how is proof they aprove of her behavior. It's NOT. I would've laughed too though I don't approve of her initial behavior. Am I now racist? Did you miss the part when the audience approved of her change of heart?

And her speech was clearly not a "plea" but simply a motivational tale of reconciliation.

 

[BeAChooser]

except that the video clearly shows nobody laughing when Sherrod when she discusses the way she initially treats the farmer. So it's also refusing to call Williams a racist despite his repeated racist behavior, and then making thingsup in order to portray the NAACP as racist.

"I was trying to decide how much help I was going to give him." Ha Ha Ha goes the audience.

I'll grant that's all the laughter you hear, but it's not made up.

And whether Williams is a racist is a matter of interpretation.

Before you act all high and mighty, Mumbles, will you call the NAACP racist for the way they treated Mr Gladney? Did you look at that video?

Are you so blinded by agenda as to not see reverse racism by the NAACP when it is staring you in the face?

Will you acknowledge that the NAACP is wrong to accuse the Tea Party of racism using the totally unsubstantiated claims of a couple racebaiting congressmen who tried to provoke an incident? Isn't supporting their claims just because they are black, inherently racist?

I know you don't want to address the rest of the content of my post (like the question about which organization is more racist), but you best understand that there is a storm blowing through this country and it is headed your way. We conservatives aren't going to simply take being called racist or Uncle Toms anymore. You'd best not expect us to cower. Here we sit, with a BLACK PRESIDENT, and still all we hear from the racebaiters who still run the black community and it's organizations is the message that America is a racist country and anyone who challenges the democrat agenda in any form is a racist. Well I think Dennis Prager has something pertinent to say on this:

http://townhall.com/columnists/Denn...ction_of_a_black_president_made_no_difference

NAACP Confirms Election of a Black President Made No Difference

Perhaps you should read it.

 

[dudalb]

And perhaps we should no longer be giving a "pass" to people like Breitbart and Drudge who masquerade as journalists but are nothing more than marketing whores willing to put anything in print if it drives their web traffic up.

Fine, as long as you agree that the Micheal Moore's of the world are no better.

 

[Juniversal]

Let me point out one more thing. The NAACP is a black only organization. The Tea Party clearly is not. As I showed earlier in this thread, it has a significant number of black members. Now on the face of it, which organization is more attractive to people who focus on race (i.e., potential racists)? An organization which does not accept white members, whose name mentions one race, and whose agenda is clearly about advancing that one specific race? Or an organization which has both white and black (and brown, and red, and yellow, etc) members, whose name doesn't mention race, and whose agenda says nothing about race? Which is more attractive to racists? An organization (like the Tea Party) which makes it known that racists are not welcom and whose members are vocal about confronting such people when encountered at their rallies and events? Or an organization that does neither?

I would think you would do your research before you post. The NAACP is NOT a "black only" organization. There are white members of the NAACP. And I certainly wouldn't say the Tea Party has a "significant" number of black members. That's an exaggeration at best. But I wouldn't think an organization created to fight the against the disenfranchisment of blacks would attract many white people. Would you? And there's still huge disparities between whites and blacks that would warrant an organization like the NAACP to remain in existence.

Look at the case of Kennety Gladney. He is a black man who was viciously beaten and called the N-word by SEIU thugs at a Tea Party last August. He asked the NAACP for help. And instead, the NAACP called him an Uncle Tom and took the side of the SEIU thugs. Here, you can watch them do that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-F2khQudUo&feature=player_embedded . I think that incident and the response of the NAACP to it says volumes about the NAACP. It proves it is now a partisan, liberal/socialist/communist political organization and not much else.

Liberal/socialist/communist? Really? You forgot facist, anti-american, marxist terrorist, ect. And yes that guy giving the speech is an idiot. Regardless something doesn't sit right with me about the Gladney attack.

I found this video of the attack (oddly enough from a big government artical) and I see nothing "vicious" or brutal about it. Honestly it looks like the black guy with the dark blue shirt who I assume is a SEIU member (on the ground with at the begining of the video) got the worst of the attack. Kenneth seemed to be moving around just fine at the very end of the video when he was talking to the police. Now unless he was somehow seriously injured at the end of the video when he was surrounded by police and police cars then I can't help but feel Gladney was seriously milking the confrontation. Especially after reading this big government artical that claims "he was too weak to speak after his public beating" as well as being in a wheel chair. But apparently not weak enough to make it to a protest in a wheel chair for a photo op looking pathetic.

 

[johnny karate]

Could you be less specific?

In the spirit of Merv's preceding post, I was attempting to be ironic.

 

[BeAChooser]

And if you want to interpret their statement as implying the entire movement is racist then so be it but the statement definately didn't explicity indict the entire tea party as racist.

Well does this?

http://wokv.com/localnews/2010/07/jacksonville-naacp-president-s.html

Jacksonville NAACP President Says Tea Party Is Racist

Following suit with the National Association for the Advancement Of Colored People, the local chapter president, Isaiah Rumlin said the Tea Party movement exhibits structured racism.

And you seem intent on pushing this idea that the one time the audience members chuckled during her story some how is proof they aprove of her behavior.

You seem intent on ignoring the NAACP's statements about Gladney. You seem to intent on ignoring their uncritical support of the black caucus congressmen who claimed, without anything whatsoever to substantiate their claim at all and much evidence to the contrary, that they were called the N-word and spit on. You seem intent on ignoring the NAACP's ignoring other blacks (and white democrats) who have made clearly racist remarks in the past. And do you honestly believe there is not a single member of the NAACP who is a racist or who hires a black person over a white person solely on the basis of race? Because that's what they are insisting the Tea Party must have before it should be listened to by anyone.

Mary Frances Berry, the former black chairwoman of The U.S. Commission On Civil Rights, told Politico on July 20, 2010, that ''Tainting the Tea Party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for democrats. There's no evidence the Tea Party adherents are any more racist than other republicans, and indeed many other Americans, but getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help democrats win in November. Having one's opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.'' Is that not what's really going on here, Juniversal?

And her speech was clearly not a "plea" but simply a motivational tale of reconciliation.

At one point she says

I've come to realize that we have to work together … and … you know it's sad that we don't have a room full of white and blacks here tonight, because we have to overcome the divisions that we have. We have to get to the point where as Tully Marsden [?] said ' Race exists but it doesn't matter.' We have to work just as hard. I know that division is still here but our communities are not going to thrive … our children won't have the communities that they need to be stay in, live in and have a good life, if we can't figure this out you all. White people, black people, hispanic people, we all have to do our part to make our communities a safe place, a healthy place, a good environment.

 

[A'isha]

And whether Williams is a racist is a matter of interpretation.

Really? What interpretation do you give it, BAC?

Before you act all high and mighty, Mumbles, will you call the NAACP racist for the way they treated Mr Gladney? Did you look at that video?

I think Juniversal covered that.

Will you acknowledge that the NAACP is wrong to accuse the Tea Party of racism using the totally unsubstantiated claims of a couple racebaiting congressmen who tried to provoke an incident? Isn't supporting their claims just because they are black, inherently racist?

Sure, that would be terrible...if that, in fact, had any relation whatsoever to why the NAACP released the statement they did regarding the Tea Party.

Here's a hint, BAC: you talked about one of the real reasons the NAACP called upon the Tea Party to repudiate the racists who tried to associate themselves with the organization in the post I'm replying to, And there are many other reasons, too, none of which have anything to do with purported attacks on the congressmen.

I know you don't want to address the rest of the content of my post (like the question about which organization is more racist), but you best understand that there is a storm blowing through this country and it is headed your way. We conservatives aren't going to simply take being called racist or Uncle Toms anymore.

You know, if you're going to get indignant about being called a racist, it helps to not do things like write a letter in the voice of former slaves describing how they really don't like being expected to work for a living and describing slavery as "a great gig", or carry things like this or this at Tea Party rallies.

Just sayin'.

You'd best not expect us to cower. Here we sit, with a BLACK PRESIDENT, and still all we hear from the racebaiters who still run the black community and it's organizations is the message that America is a racist country and anyone who challenges the democrat agenda in any form is a racist.

What possible reason do you have for thinking that the election of a single black president in America magically undoes the decades of pervasive racism that has existed in American society, and as shown by that segment of bigots who are now attempting to latch onto the Tea Parties, still exists to a disturbing degree?

The election of Obama was just one more step along a path towards a colorblind society, not the final step. There's still a long way to go.

 

[A'isha]

"There's no evidence the Tea Party adherents are any more racist than other republicans,"

Wow, talk about your unfortunate implications...

 

[pipelineaudio]

This one was always one of my favorites:

[qimg]http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr157/antpogo/medicare.jpg[/qimg]

Epic win! Its like that "behead those that call islam violent" sign

 

[Accidental Martyr]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
"There's no evidence the Tea Party adherents are any more racist than other republicans,"

Wow, talk about your unfortunate implications...

LOL

 

[Juniversal]

Well does this?

http://wokv.com/localnews/2010/07/jacksonville-naacp-president-s.html

Nope.

You seem intent on ignoring the NAACP's statements about Gladney. You seem to intent on ignoring their uncritical support of the black caucus congressmen who claimed, without anything whatsoever to substantiate their claim at all and much evidence to the contrary, that they were called the N-word and spit on.

I have no sympathy for Gladney. He's a mediocre actor at best.

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/faking-victimhood-just-how-hurt-was

And yes. As I mentioned the guy giving the NAACP speech is an idiot.

You seem intent on ignoring the NAACP's ignoring other blacks (and white democrats) who have made clearly racist remarks in the past. And do you honestly believe there is not a single member of the NAACP who is a racist or who hires a black person over a white person solely on the basis of race? Because that's what they are insisting the Tea Party must have before it should be listened to by anyone.

Let's be honest. Any movement that has the racial diversity of a bag of rice, calls the President an illegal alien (no doubt many tea baggers are birthers), and appears suddenly when the first BLACK president enters office is naturally, going to be percieved as having an agenda relolving around the race of the President. Especially since conservatives don't have the best track record when it comes to issues of race. To many people, modern conservatives (paticularly social conservatives) are seen as an extension of the Conservatives who opposed the Civil Rights movement and opposed minority rights. And for a sizable segment of the constituency, they are.

Intrinsically the parties haven't changed much since the party shuffle that happened in the 1950's and 60's where the more conservative elements of the Democratic party migrated to the Republican party (Strom Thurmond for example) as the Democrats became more liberal and concerned with minority rights. I really can't blame the NAACP for being defensive over the tea party.

And of course I wouldn't say NO NAACP members were racist. But I also couldn't imagine they were paticularly prominent in the organization.

Mary Frances Berry, the former black chairwoman of The U.S. Commission On Civil Rights, told Politico on July 20, 2010, that ''Tainting the Tea Party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for democrats. There's no evidence the Tea Party adherents are any more racist than other republicans, and indeed many other Americans, but getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help democrats win in November. Having one's opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.'' Is that not what's really going on here, Juniversal?



At one point she says

Please tell the Tea Partiers to start "discussing joblessness" as they seem intent on marginalizing themselves with their empty rhetoric.

 

[eeyore1954]

And perhaps we should no longer be giving a "pass" to people like Breitbart and Drudge who masquerade as journalists but are nothing more than marketing whores willing to put anything in print if it drives their web traffic up.

I have no reason to believe they are marketing "whores" . Is Adrianna Huffington also nothing more than a one also.

Have they put anything up if it drives traffic. Breitbart put up something that he believes in and probably was willingly duped into believing. If others were so quickly misled by the video why not him.

Although I have never gone to a Brietbart sites. But I am going now, My experience with Drudge is it usually has pretty accurate news articles.

 

[quarky]

I've received a few scoldings from the mod-squad recently, so I must tone down my language.
Therefore,
I've got nothing to say about this subject.

 

[Juniversal]

Have they put anything up if it drives traffic. Breitbart put up something that he believes in and probably was willingly duped into believing. If others were so quickly misled by the video why not him.

Although I have never gone to a Brietbart sites. But I am going now, My experience with Drudge is it usually has pretty accurate news articles.

Breitbart doesn't even claim he was duped. He never says he was decieved by the short length of the clip into believing Sherrod was a racist. What he does do though is basically lie and claim he never implied Sherrod was a racist and it was the media's misinterpretation that gave that impression.

 

[Mumbles]

I have no reason to believe they are marketing "whores" . Is Adrianna Huffington also nothing more than a one also.

Seriously, have you actually seen Huffington Post? Linked articles from real news sites, lots of woo, and celebrity breasts are their MO.

 

[Mumbles]

"I was trying to decide how much help I was going to give him." Ha Ha Ha goes the audience.

I'll grant that's all the laughter you hear, but it's not made up.

And it's in response to her turnaround. When she discusses how she initially discriminated against the farmer, nobody laughs.

And whether Williams is a racist is a matter of interpretation.

No it's not.

Before you act all high and mighty, Mumbles, will you call the NAACP racist for the way they treated Mr Gladney? Did you look at that video?

What, the dude that pretended to get beaten badly be the SEIU? Sure. What they should have said was that he was an obvious sham.

Will you acknowledge that the NAACP is wrong to accuse the Tea Party of racism using the totally unsubstantiated claims of a couple racebaiting congressmen who tried to provoke an incident? Isn't supporting their claims just because they are black, inherently racist?

Nope.

And the thing is, If John Lewis walked up and said that he was called the N-Word by anyone, I'd believe it unless I had actual footage showing that he lied. And by actual, I mean not posted by Andrew Breitbart, among other caveats. And that's because John Lewis is a hero, and Andrew Breitbart is a sociopath.

I know you don't want to address the rest of the content of my post (like the question about which organization is more racist), but you best understand that there is a storm blowing through this country and it is headed your way. We conservatives aren't going to simply take being called racist or Uncle Toms anymore. You'd best not expect us to cower.

Also, the gays want to ruin marriage.

From where I sit, the conservative movement, in general, has been at the forefront of anti-black racism for my entire life. They've always been shrill about it. So I'm not at all suprised by this storm - I've been in that hurricane for over thirty years now.

Granted, not every prominent white conservative is a racist. There's Mike Huckabee...uh...there's Mike Huckabee! And I certainly won't accuse every conservative of hating black people. I know a lot of black conservatives, and I know some white conservatives that find racist humor disgusting.

Here we sit, with a BLACK PRESIDENT, and still all we hear from the racebaiters who still run the black community and it's organizations is the message that America is a racist country and anyone who challenges the democrat agenda in any form is a racist.

My view on this is very simple. If republicans (and this is a republican problem, not a conservative one - I said before that I know many black conservatives, but most of them are staunch democrats) don't want to be viewed as racists, they need only stop saying and doing racist things for a while.

Well I think Dennis Prager has something pertinent to say on this:

http://townhall.com/columnists/Denn...ction_of_a_black_president_made_no_difference



Perhaps you should read it.

You lost me at "Dennis Prager".

 

[Lurker]

Do you honestly think the NAACP doesn't attract racist elements? It's very name suggests that it might attract them.

You think the term "colored" is going to attract racists to the NAACP? Anyway, we know they have addressed racism. They condemned the NBP (Ben Jealous), they came out against Sherrod when they thought she was being racist against whites. And that is only in the last couple of weeks. Imgaine what I might find if I looked further? So your claim that they don't condemn reverse racists is false.

And you should realize that videotaped evidence of it's members laughing at reverse racism during the telling of Sherrod's story isn't the only instance one could point to involving the NAACP that suggests it might "tolerate" reverse racism of the sort that Sherrod was talking about in it's ranks. In fact, if you looked at Sherrod's complete video, you see Sherrod making a plea, not to the Tea Party, but to NAACP members to not do what she did years ago, but to work for racial conciliation instead. Why did she do that? Presumably she made this plea because she thought the attitude of reverse racism might be found amongst people in her audience (all members of NAACP) . Else why say it?

Laughing? It seems there are different ways to interpret the sounds. If the NAACP is racist and the audience laughed at Sherrod talking about treating whities poorly, why did they clap and cheer when she came to the thrust of her story about it not being about race but economics? If they were so racist why would they calp as their alleged worldview is demolished by this woman?

They may have chuckled about the FACT that Sherrod saw the white man as trying to act superior and then the audacity of that same man asking for help might elicit some chuckles. That is most likely what they were laughing at, not "sticking it to the whie man". In the context of the speech and its ending it makes more sense. Otherwise the racist NAACP audience would not have cheered so loudly about their worldview being dismissed.

Let me point out one more thing. The NAACP is a black only organization. The Tea Party clearly is not.

It is? Sean Hannity is a member and he does not look black to me.

 

[Lurker]

"I was trying to decide how much help I was going to give him." Ha Ha Ha goes the audience.

I'll grant that's all the laughter you hear, but it's not made up.

Keep in mind, just before this Sherrod notes how the white man in her office is acting superior and trying to make her feel inferior.

Is it possible that some in the audience might react with a chuckle at the thought of a man pissing off the woman they came to for help and then the woman saying, "I was trying to decide how much help I was going to give him."

You don't find that even remotely funny?

 

[AlBell]

"There's no evidence the Tea Party adherents are any more racist than other republicans,"

Wow, talk about your unfortunate implications...

Since almost by definition by groups like NAACP, all whites are racist, which voting bloc do you think is being wooed by Tea Partiers? Blacks who will vote R, or whites who voted D in 2008?

Anyway, keep the Tea{pot} tempests blowing; 2010 elections approach.