245 replies to this topic

[Practical Girl]

dsp, on 25 April 2014 - 08:17 AM, said:

Now let me talk about the Spanish people. Now I understand that they come over here against our Constitution and cross our borders. But they're here, and they're people. And I've worked beside a lot of them. Don't tell me they don't work, and don't tell me they don't pay taxes. And don't tell me they don't have better family structures than most of us white people. When you see those Mexican families, they're together, they picnic together, they're spending their time together. And I'll tell you, in my way of thinking, they're awful nice people. And we need to have those people going to be with us.

Lol. "I needs me some cheap labor, and black Americans expect things like minimum wage and safe working' conditions, jes like the whites. Them's Mexicans? Border sneakers ain't got no right to demand things, but they sho'nuff work hard"

And, right on cue after taking a beating for his racist screed...Bundy's throwing a PARTY! Special invitation to all the darkies

[dsp]

Tom, on 25 April 2014 - 09:24 AM, said:

Are you saying that "You're a racist" is meaner or nastier than "You're so incompetent at modern life that you'd be better off as a slave"?

Or is there something I'm missing here - what exactly are these things that cultural liberals say that don't simply come down to "you're a racist"?

Here is an example of the things cultural liberals say that I have in mind. This in my experience is what passes for sensible race commentary among a large portion of cultural liberals. This rhetoric is typical not atypical of what you find inside their hives and epistemically closed bubbles.

Quote

The Tea Party IS very close to the Ku Klux Klan. They're only at the barely-veiled-threat stage of the violence spiral, but they've got that same violence gene as the Klan. They've certainly got the same bigotry.

Alan Grayson has nothing to apologize for. He made a valid comparison, which shows how dangerous the Tea Party really is.

Let's keep the comparison going. How did the Ku Klux Klan look back in earlier eras? Look at their heyday, in the 1920's. The Klan was popular. The Klan was mainstream. It wasn't just a few meth-heads and child molesters wearing those white sheets back then. The Klan numbered in the millions, they were part of mainstream politics, they had political machines that got their people into elected office, and they wielded power.

Sound familiar?

Back then, the Klan was very dangerous, and their machinations contributed to the countless lynchings and other anti-black and anti-minority violence that plagued not just the South, but the entire nation.

When you look at the demographics, the Klan back in the day, and the Tea Party of today are composed of the same assholes.

That was a defense of the economically populist Democrat Alan Grayson comparing the Tea Party to the Klan.

Now, I happen to love Alan Grayson. He and Bernie Sanders are my favorite representatives in Congress. But here is one case where I will admit to believing the end justifies the means. If Grayson directly comparing the Tea Party to the Klan, and appealing to the rank stupidity, ignorance and the cultural bigotry of the liberal lumpen in his district is what it takes to keep him in office, I fully support it. But let's not pretend that finding any credibility whatsoever in broad comparisons between a group as large as the Tea Party supporters and the Klan is evidence of anything but cultural bigotry founded on ignorance.


http://www.dailykos....e-Ku-Klux-Klan#

[D. C. Sessions]

Practical Girl, on 25 April 2014 - 09:31 AM, said:

Bundy's throwing a PARTY! Special invitation to all the darkies

It'll be a big party, so there's gonna be separate toilets for the groups.

[J-CA]

DSP, your link is to a "diary" post by a commenter/community member at Daily Kos, not an editor or a staff writer or even an author of anything particularly popular.
This seems like quoting a YouTube comment for the purposes of demonstrating what "young people think these days."

[Tom]

dsp, on 25 April 2014 - 10:02 AM, said:

Here is an example of the things cultural liberals say that I have in mind. This in my experience is what passes for sensible race commentary among a large portion of cultural liberals. This rhetoric is typical not atypical of what you find inside their hives and epistemically closed bubbles.

Leaving aside whether this is actually what passes for "sensible race commentary among cultural liberals," which part of the statement you quoted do you find more objectionable than (or at least as objectionable as) suggesting that an entire race would be better off enslaved? The suggestion that as a group, the Tea Party is at least partly motivated by racial animosity? Or that as a group, they are capable of racial violence? Something else?

Just quoting it and saying "see what I mean?!?" doesn't help me understand your point of view much better.

[Practical Girl]

I stand with Grayson on this one, too, and the observation of this blogger:

Quote

The Tea Party IS very close to the Ku Klux Klan. They're only at the barely-veiled-threat stage of the violence spiral, but they've got that same violence gene as the Klan. They've certainly got the same bigotry.

Not saying that TP is the Klan at this point. This early in KKK history, the Klan wasn't even the Klan. Just a kernel of an idea that infected, grew and oozed its puss all over America. But within the TP, the elements are there. Can anybody deny this, especially the bigotry, after what some TPers brought us during the elections? "Don't Re-Nig 2012", "Save White America", a poster ending with "Niggar" (because racists are also uneducated, I guess), "Monkey See, Monkey Spend" (this one held by a KID), "The Zoo Has An African Lion And The White House Has A Lyin' African", "Hang In There, Obama", complete with a noose.

EDIT: This is just a very small sampling of what the Tea Party either hailed or turned a blind eye too. Good God- in the midst of all of this, a whole slew of powerful elected officials- including the Speaker of the House- held a Tea Party rally on the steps of the US Capitol. One by one, they let everybody know that they "stand with the Tea Party". Not one of them took on the racist shit, not one of them called for calmer heads. This is America, and it's chilling.

And then it all went viral, to the point where these sentiments (and worse) are a daily dose on blogs all over the country. YES. The element is there. If the Tea Party doesn't want the comparison, then they need to beat the element down. It isn't up to anybody but them, and in the meantime? Shining a light on this crap is vital.

[Progressive whisperer]

Practical Girl, on 25 April 2014 - 11:05 AM, said:

I stand with Grayson on this one, too, and the observation of this blogger:



Not saying that TP is the Klan at this point. This early in KKK history, the Klan wasn't even the Klan. Just a kernel of an idea that infected, grew and oozed its puss all over America. But within the TP, the elements are there. Can anybody deny this, especially the bigotry, after what some TPers brought us during the elections? "Don't Re-Nig 2012", "Save White America", a poster ending with "Niggar" (because racists are also uneducated, I guess), "Monkey See, Monkey Spend" (this one held by a KID), "The Zoo Has An African Lion And The White House Has A Lyin' African", "Hang In There, Obama", complete with a noose.

EDIT: This is just a very small sampling of what the Tea Party either hailed or turned a blind eye too. Good God- in the midst of all of this, a whole slew of powerful elected officials- including the Speaker of the House- held a Tea Party rally on the steps of the US Capitol. One by one, they let everybody know that they "stand with the Tea Party". Not one of them took on the racist shit, not one of them called for calmer heads. This is America, and it's chilling.

And then it all went viral, to the point where these sentiments (and worse) are a daily dose on blogs all over the country. YES. The element is there. If the Tea Party doesn't want the comparison, then they need to beat the element down. It isn't up to anybody but them, and in the meantime? Shining a light on this crap is vital.

Other than that the Klan started with the violence day one, I would say there is a strong tie. Maybe some of the first TPers were really all about taxes, but that changed quickly (and where were they while the other guy was putting scorch marks on the national credit card with?). I suspect the only reason they haven't followed the same path is tactical - if they started out shooting up and firebombing the offices of those they dislike the full force of law enforcement would come down on them.

Maybe DSP thinks the guys with the rebel flags or the holstered firearm and the signs about watering the tree of liberty were allowed only because the Tea Party are such strong free-speech advocates. The rest of us aren't buying it.

[Practical Girl]

Thanks, PW. I glossed over the violence element of both beginnings. TP, more subtle, but there. Remembering Palin's "2nd amendment remedy" and the crosshairs charts as well as all the signs at rallies with some version of "We Came Unarmed-This Time".

Tying this all down, media folks who made Bundy a hero are flatly embarrassed for themselves. It's the only reason that some want to sanitize what they did last week with condemnations of the racist element. One of the reasons I cheer things like Grayson's fire-throwing in this case is that public humiliation is the only way we're ever going to get GOPer elected officials to start loudly denouncing the racist elements threading through.

[Progressive whisperer]

Practical Girl, on 25 April 2014 - 11:57 AM, said:

Thanks, PW. I glossed over the violence element of both beginnings. TP, more subtle, but there. Remembering Palin's "2nd amendment remedy" and the crosshairs charts as well as all the signs at rallies with some version of "We Came Unarmed-This Time".

Tying this all down, media folks who made Bundy a hero are flatly embarrassed for themselves. It's the only reason that some want to sanitize what they did last week with condemnations of the racist element. One of the reasons I cheer things like Grayson's fire-throwing in this case is that public humiliation is the only way we're ever going to get GOPer elected officials to start loudly denouncing the racist elements threading through.

Yes, while the old Klan certainly came to have a lot of support, they were never able to have the fully open embrace the Tea Party gets by claiming they don't support racism (even while their actions say otherwise). I guess the fact the avoid hoods but like to dress as Continental Soldiers, irrespective that there was no such thing during the original Tea Party. I suppose it just says "I'm a Patriot" in their minds.

Grayson gets a lot if flak from the right, but most of them would have gone totally nuts if (like Joe Wilson) he or someone else had yelled "You lie" while GWB was, well, lying about Iraq.

[baw1064]

J-CA, on 24 April 2014 - 06:37 PM, said:

So I assume that if he wins Mr. Giles will ask him to surrender his lands to the Paiutes?

The Paiutes certainly have a more legitimate claim to the land than does Mr. Bundy. Seriously, someone should say that to him and post the video of his response.

[Progressive whisperer]

baw1064, on 25 April 2014 - 12:13 PM, said:

The Paiutes certainly have a more legitimate claim to the land than does Mr. Bundy. Seriously, someone should say that to him and post the video of his response.

You don't understand. God wanted us white European folk to take the continent from the heathen. If he didn't, we wouldn't have succeeded.

Don't ask why he didn't want the CSA or maybe Deseret to succeed. He was (and is) testing his true followers in those places.

[drdredel]

dsp, on 25 April 2014 - 10:02 AM, said:

Here is an example of the things cultural liberals say that I have in mind. This in my experience is what passes for sensible race commentary among a large portion of cultural liberals. This rhetoric is typical not atypical of what you find inside their hives and epistemically closed bubbles.



That was a defense of the economically populist Democrat Alan Grayson comparing the Tea Party to the Klan.

Now, I happen to love Alan Grayson. He and Bernie Sanders are my favorite representatives in Congress. But here is one case where I will admit to believing the end justify the means. If Grayson directly comparing the Tea Party to the Klan, and appealing to the rank stupidity, ignorance and the cultural bigotry of the liberal lumpen in his district is what it takes to keep him in office, I fully support it. But let's not pretend that finding any credibility whatsoever in broad comparisons between a group as large as the Tea Party supporters and the Klan is evidence of anything but cultural bigotry founded on ignorance.


http://www.dailykos....e-Ku-Klux-Klan#

I'm not an expert, but I saw a reasonably thorough documentary on the History channel some years ago from which I gathered that in the early part of the 20th century the Klan was a HUGE (numbering in the tens of millions) and almost populist organization, to which just about all southern whites belonged. It had factions that were more noisy (read: violent) than the general horde, but if we're going to make comparisons, I see absolutely nothing unfair about comparing the KKK to the Tea Party. Both are led by ignoramuses and both have small minorities willing to do really heinous things. I'd argue the only backstop is that they aren't contained in a small enough area to just go nuts with their agenda and wherever they are there's a sizeable population in opposition. And yes... they're not *as prone to violence - yet. However, again... what specifically are you objecting to in the comparison? A bunch of uppity white people getting angry at straw-men and taking their general sense of dissatisfaction with their own lives out on some scape goat-ed portion of the population. Which one am I describing here?

[dsp]

J-CA, on 25 April 2014 - 09:26 AM, said:

DSP, only in your view of the world do "liberals" treat racist condescension like this and KKK membership and cross-burnings as the same thing. It took about 30 seconds of googling to find published articles from people that are about the liberaliest liberals around calling that Duck Dynasty guy's comments not really a big deal which were basically a rehashing of the same thing.

You accusing others of being incapable of appreciating nuance is also deeply entertaining.

J-CA,

In 30 seconds of googling, you found typical cultural liberal commentary on race. McWhorter argues that Phil Robertson made racist statements, but they're not important compared to Robertson's gay statements. He gives his reasons.

There is, however, a small problem here. Who the hell says Phil Robertson made racist statements at all? What racist statements did Robertson make? Where are they? You do understand, or maybe you don't, that just because some cultural liberal deems a statement to be racist that doesn't make it true. Cultural liberals don't get the final word on what is or is not racist (unless you're part of their bubble).

Robertson offered some personal reflections on what he saw during the Jim Crow era in Louisiana. Cultural liberals then picked up on Robertson's words and falsely characterized Robertson's words as a broad commentary on the era that "blacks were better off then" when that wasn't what he said.

Robertson didn't say that blacks were better off under Jim Crow. He said what he personally saw. There is a ocean of difference between those statements.

Your writer McWhorter, and the Time headline writer, just took it for granted that Robertson's statements were "racist," and they went from there. Classic cultural liberalism. Something is racist because they say it is.

So, all together now...Mere disagreement with liberal positions on race is not evidence of racism...

[dsp]

Tom, on 25 April 2014 - 11:01 AM, said:

Leaving aside whether this is actually what passes for "sensible race commentary among cultural liberals," which part of the statement you quoted do you find more objectionable than (or at least as objectionable as) suggesting that an entire race would be better off enslaved? The suggestion that as a group, the Tea Party is at least partly motivated by racial animosity? Or that as a group, they are capable of racial violence? Something else?

Just quoting it and saying "see what I mean?!?" doesn't help me understand your point of view much better.

He characterized millions and millions of people as just itching to burn crosses and carry out lynchings because they carry a violence gene and have the same bigotry. That's as objectionable in my book as saying blacks might have been better of as slaves. The common denominator between that person and Bundy is they both generalized too much.

[dsp]

drdredel, on 25 April 2014 - 12:19 PM, said:

I'm not an expert, but I saw a reasonably thorough documentary on the History channel some years ago from which I gathered that in the early part of the 20th century the Klan was a HUGE (numbering in the tens of millions) and almost populist organization, to which just about all southern whites belonged. It had factions that were more noisy (read: violent) than the general horde, but if we're going to make comparisons, I see absolutely nothing unfair about comparing the KKK to the Tea Party. Both are led by ignoramuses and both have small minorities willing to do really heinous things. I'd argue the only backstop is that they aren't contained in a small enough area to just go nuts with their agenda and wherever they are there's a sizeable population in opposition. And yes... they're not *as prone to violence - yet. However, again... what specifically are you objecting to in the comparison? A bunch of uppity white people getting angry at straw-men and taking their general sense of dissatisfaction with their own lives out on some scape goat-ed portion of the population. Which one am I describing here?

Does it matter to you that the Tea Party does not promote any of the same race ideas that the Klan promoted?

And not to be pedantic, but at its height the second Klan was dominant in the north not the south.

Quote

The second Klan emerged during the nadir of American race relations, but much of its growth was in response to new issues of urbanization, immigration and industrialization. The massive immigration of Catholics and Jews from eastern and southern Europe led to fears among Protestants about the new peoples, and especially about job and social competition. The Great Migration of African Americans to the North stoked job and housing competition and racism by whites in Midwestern and Western industrial cities. The second Klan achieved its greatest political power in Indiana; it was active throughout the South, Midwest, especially Michigan; and in the West, in Colorado and Oregon. The migration of both African Americans and whites from rural areas to Southern and Midwestern cities increased social tensions.

The Klan became most prominent in urbanizing cities with high growth rates between 1910 and 1930, such as Detroit, Memphis, and Dayton in the Upper South and Midwest; and Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston in the South. In Michigan, close to 50% of the Klan members lived in Detroit, where they numbered 40,000.

http://en.wikipedia....15.E2.80.931944

[dsp]

J-CA, on 25 April 2014 - 10:14 AM, said:

DSP, your link is to a "diary" post by a commenter/community member at Daily Kos, not an editor or a staff writer or even an author of anything particularly popular.
This seems like quoting a YouTube comment for the purposes of demonstrating what "young people think these days."

PG, PW, and DD have all checked in with the view that comparisons between the TMP and the KKK are reasonable.

[Tom]

dsp, on 25 April 2014 - 12:48 PM, said:

He characterized millions and millions of people as just itching to burn crosses and carry out lynchings because they carry a violence gene and have the same bigotry. That's as objectionable in my book as saying blacks might have been better of as slaves. The common denominator between that person and Bundy is they both generalized too much.

By being outraged about over-generalizations, what you've completely missed here, DSP, is that saying some Tea Partiers are violent bigots is certainly true, while saying only some blacks would be better off enslaved is still morally repulsive.

[Practical Girl]

dsp.

Quote

Mere disagreement with liberal positions on race is not evidence of racism

Phil Robertson may have just been expressing his own observations of the Jim Crow days, but he did himself a disservice. "Duck Dynasty" ratings ended sharply down from the beginning of the season. Now, I don't have demographics on the tuned-out viewers, but the Duck Dynasty audience demographics are well defined. Very heavily conservative leaning, as a percentage of total viewers. So, we can certainly extrapolate that the 2.5 million viewers who disconnected are primarily conservative or conservative leaning. And with those demographics, what's most likely to have turned them off- the "icky gay sex" comments, or the Jim Crow stuff?

So I submit: Mere disagreement with what's generally considered an outlandish viewpoint on a matter of race is not evidence of liberalism.

BTW: Things have gone really sour for Phil, to the point where live events of his that used to be packed are getting cancelled due to lack of interest. When they don't want to know you in Springfield, MO, you're over.

[Practical Girl]

Quote

Does it matter to you that the Tea Party does not promote any of the same race ideas that the Klan promoted?

You didn't ask me, but I'd like to reiterate that it bothers me that the threads of racism, bigotry and violence demonstrated within the Tea Party were never addressed in any meaningful way by TPers and the sitting politicians who lead their movement. It also bothers me a great deal how many of the rallies etc. were "family events" and how many people exposed their kids to that sort of stuff. Because while the Klan proliferated through the adult community, the movement flourished and became more violent through the indoctrination of the young.

EDIT: I'm also appalled that both movements had/have religious overtones. Hatred, violence and religion are highly emotional and ritualized. Thus, the Klan ended up believing in their God-given mission to protect their womenfolk and the white race against mongrelization, and this was what they taught their kids. Ugly, but powerful when presented as Biblical.

The Tea Party combined God, racism and also religious superiority. So their message? "God hates the Muslim Kenyan nigger in the White House. And next time, we come armed". How many kids still hear that garbage in their homes, today? How many adults have those thoughts reinforced?

[drdredel]

dsp, on 25 April 2014 - 12:56 PM, said:

Does it matter to you that the Tea Party does not promote any of the same race ideas that the Klan promoted?

And not to be pedantic, but at its height the second Klan was dominant in the north not the south.



http://en.wikipedia....15.E2.80.931944

Never fear being pedantic... I love to learn what I don't know.

And no, it doesn't "bother me" because I think that the Tea Party, while not overtly racist the way the KKK is (was) is driven by largely the same misconceptions and boogey men. The Tea Party's core ideology (to the extent that it has one) is that the Government has its fingers in too many things and that life would be better if people were just left to their own devices.
Implicit in that statement (if you go digging through it) is the notion that there are poor people in this country that are not self sufficient and that rely on the government for support. And hidden in that opinion is the (false) assumption that the majority of these poor people are black.

Consider... if the Tea Party was full of populists that wanted to help "Average Joe" and if they didn't have a thinly veiled anti-brown agenda, wouldn't they have amongst their ranks a large population of those same brown people? Are you suggesting that it's merely coincidence that they are comprised largely of >30 white men?