No, I’m under the impression that there were very few to begin with. And that the leadership, as much as there is one, is doing what it can to distance themselves from such people. This is one case of that.
It seems like you’re all going “They do nothing to make racists unwelcome! They love having them in the party. TPers (or teabaggers, har har, ain’t I funny?) are all racists”. “But they denounce them in the media, and look here: they even kicked out Williams.” “Yeah well, that doesn’t count.” :rolleyes:
No, we’re saying most of them do nothing to make racists unwelcome, and they appear to be willing to let them stick around, for the most part.
You keep claiming “that they denounce them in the media”, but all you’ve pointed to is the Williams thing. I’ve seen one or two anti-racist comments (I wouldn’t characterize them as denunciations) from TP leaders; there are hundreds of Tea Parties, however, and most don’t seem to give a shit.
I’ve got a challenge for you, Chessic Sense. Do you think that I am unreasonable to believe that Carl Paladino*, the Tea Party gubernatorial candidate here in NY, has shown himself to be a sexist and a racist?
If you do think so, why the Hell shouldn’t I feel that the Tea Party here in NY is tainted by its willingness to support him for gubernatorial office? Further, if that’s the sort of filth they’ll support locally, where I can get more of the details of the individuals involved, why shouldn’t I assume that the rest of the Tea Party is just as bankrupt?
*Just in case you missed it, here’s a link to the post in this thread where I laid out my objections to Carl Paladino.
Most of the Tea Party sorts I know deny Williams was any sort of leader for the Tea Party. He’s just someone who the press pays attention to, not nearly as important as Glen Beck or anyone else.
The Tea Party Express (William’s group) was the one that Glen Beck and Fox News flogged endlessly last year, even sending their anchors and personalities to report from their rallies.
No, I think this is a very good move on behalf of the Tea Party. Good for them for kicking Williams to the curb. I hope it’s the beginning of a housekeeping trend that entirely marginalizes the racist elements of the Tea Party. However, it remains the first example I’ve seen of the Tea Party acting against its own racist elements. Is this a sign that the Tea Party is finally taking responsibility for reigning in their extreme wing? Or did Williams get thrown under the bus so they can have someone to point to in conversations just like this one? What is the Tea Party going to do the next time someone who identifies with their group says something explicitly racist?
No, I don’t know that. That is, in fact, almost entirely contrary to what I know about the situation. What I know is that early on, the Tea Party had a lot of slogans that involved using the word “tea bag” as a verb, usually (but not not always) in ignorance of the double meaning. The term wasn’t applied to them by liberals, it was invented and circulated internally well before outsiders picked up on it and began making fun of them for it. Bringing up the gaffe repeatedly this long after it happened isn’t particularly nice, but this is politics. Wear a fucking helmet.
So, having resolved the question of what I know, we are left with the question of what you know. Between this and the story that Frank linked to, you don’t seem to know a hell of a lot. Having made two demonstrably untrue claims about the Tea Party, can you give me any reason I should regard anything else you’ve said as being remotely reliable?
I can’t be the only one picturing Williams and others beating himself up ala Ed Norton in Fight Club. When the leaders are the ones who are racist, it’s a safe bet they’re not going to be doing much to “make clear their distaste at racism”.
No need to rethink. When I said “they don’t expel racists from their rank” they hadn’t done it yet. So back to the question of whether the tea party can be held at least somewhat responsible for racism among its membership…
Rand Rover, you seem to admit that racists, and if I can correctly infer from that, racism, will always be present. Does that not preclude or suggest that a group refuting racism and racists will be present as well?
The other flaw with the NAACP=KKK is that White folks were involved in the establishment and membership of the organization. Albert Einstein and Dorothy Parker were members of the NAACP. I’m not super aware of the Klan’s membership rolls, but I somehow doubt that any Blacks ever sat on the executive board or held membership.
I’m just a random Black guy on the internet, but can I point something out to my non-Black brethren/sistren out there? If you drop terms like “race card,” “reverse racism,” or announce to the word that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are the most evil men alive… I have serious questions about you.
Not saying you can’t discuss these issues and people intelligently and criticize them. But if you fail to understand why there’s an NAACP, why Jackson and Sharpton are still important in some communities, I have to believe you are intentionally keeping yourself ignorant of issues of disparity and racism in America. Look at any health care or economic indicators and Black Americans trail Whites. That can’t all be bitter, lazy, blame Whitey attitudes at work. Something systemic is in place and while it might have been altered somewhat, it ain’t gone.
And sure there is a great deal of economic disparity… but you’re either ultimately arguing that Black folks are inferior in some way or that there has been both intergenerational deficits passed on to Blacks and intergenerational advantages passed on to Whites.
Last point: I resolutely believe that in America, it isn’t enough to not be racist. You have to be anti-racist, because racist is the default position in American society. As is sexist, homophobic, and being generally intolerant of religions outside of Christianity. To overcome that cultural and historical programming, you have to be actively against it. It isn’t sufficient to simply keep your mouth shut about it, which is what the Tea Party is trying to pull.
My mother-in-law is a racist person, and she learned really early on that she could bait me into anger with racist slurs or jokes. I had a lot of people, I think including some people on this board, who thought I should just go along to get along. I should ignore that sort of baiting because it didn’t really affect me. After all, I’m not black. No one in the room was black. So what did it hurt?
But for me, it’s not enough just to say that I wasn’t joining in. I’m not just not for it. I’m against it.
There is a deep-running streak of Calvinistic misanthropy in American conservatism: they just don’t trust people. Sometimes this peaks out from under their petticoats, unthinking, unblinking. Like the opposition to unemployment benefits, because it will benefit the lazy and shiftless. By which they mean, the unemployed. And while that class of persons is (unjustly) disproportionately colored, it is largely white. To this sort of conservative, when blacks achieve complete equality, they will be on a par with their equally undeserving white counterparts. And equally in need of the firm guidance and stern criticism of their social betters. That they not decline into slothful pleasure seeking, which they do not deserve, and, more importantly, cannot afford.
So, to a degree, the plaintive cries of the misunderstood conservative has merit, they are not specifically racist. You are black, I am a radical hippy, they hate me a lot more than they hate you. Unless you are a radical black hippy, in which case, stop by for a beer and some pecan pie.
Maybe I’ve missed it amongst all the outrage, but has anyone tested the veracity of these statements? Because some people would sure look foolish if they turned out to be true.
