Tea Party vs. Black Panthers, which is "more" racist?

[thebluefood]

The person who's posts I most agree with on this page is Navy Dave.

~Bang

Bang, have you been feeling well lately?

[Baculus]

I'm glad you said that we're not post-racial, nor post class. I respect that. And I think that shows a desire on your part to cross ideological boundaries, and understand the other side.

I appreciate the comments: Though I can sometimes come across as a partisan hack, I do try to understand the other POV, especially since some of my views aren't straight-line liberal or "left."

In a lot of these debates, the more liberal poster seems to take the position that it's about race. Where the more conservative poster (me) takes the position that it's about class. Both are a problem. And both need to be addressed in terms of the solution.

Total agreement, though some of the comments I am going to add are of the leftist-pinko variety.

You may find it interesting that many worker-oriented labor and leftist groups tend to be more about moving towards a post-class society and where race isn't as important, either. It's about finding commonalities to form "bonds of strength and cooperation," if that doesn't sound too much like rah-rah propaganda. (Though that would probably fit into a description of the modern U.S. military.)

Meanwhile, I don't know of any group that supports poor, rural whites, specifically. (And frankly, I don't want one. I'm of the opinion that racially exclusive advocacy groups should be going away, not growing in numbers.) But at the same time, that lack of advocacy adds to the perception that if you're white in America, you have it made. When, as you yourself have pointed out, that's not necessarily the case; and often isn't.

Interestingly, the traditional unions, farmer's cooperatives, socialist and leftist groups were often rural, poor, and white oriented. Not because they were racist, but because those were the interests of the membership and the rural agitators, who were community and labor organizers. At this time, during the late 1800s/early 1800s, few folks had much interest in rural concerns, outside of some churches and some politicians. This is where leftists and socialists filled the void.

This is also why the progressive movement had a rural foundation in the mid-West, because progressives were focusing on the banking/lending problems facing farmers and poor homesteaders and their lack of representation in government: Wisconsin and surrounding states was a hotbed of radical rural activity during that time.

Unfortunately, with the decline of some of these organizations, you have fewer organizations which can aid and assist rural whites and focus on their concerns and problems. (Though most poor American can usually find solidarity with organizations who tend to be more class oriented as oppose to racial oriented.) This is probably why some rural whites have turned to the Tea Party movement, because they feel as if someone is talking to them.

Now, it is definitely more complex than that, since we also have issues of religion, second amendment rights, etc.

Rural Americans need community organizers as well . . . but we know how well community organizing is accepted by some Righties. By the way, I wanted to add that ACORN wasn't a race-oriented group -- it was more so focused on the needs of the lower classes, including both black and white Americans.

/preachiness off

I couldn't agree with you any more, here. And I would assert for the record that the conservatives you've heard making those statements are at best misinformed. Maybe dangerously so.

They certainly aren't helping the situation, it would seem. I admit I have been disappointed in Rand, because his father is a thoughtful man, and Rand seems to shoot from the hip way too often.

And frankly, I wouldn't want to be a part of any country, or organization that DIDN'T think it was the best.

I can agree with that -- we should strive for the best, and that would include fixing our woes, whether it's health care, our infrastructure, social issues, taxation problems, etc. I am a pretty America-first kind of guy, and this is why I have been puzzled with the backlash against some of the spending stimulus funding. Sure, a billion dollar boondoggle is a long-term financial worry -- extra debt is not desirable -- but I do think we should spend money here . . . and not in some far off war.

Macro-economics makes about as much sense to me as Mandarin Chinese. In theory I support a flat tax, but I fully grant it's a lot like communism. It's a great idea in theory, but not so much in practice.

I think communism and anarcho-capitalism are both pie-in-the-sky ideals. This is why I became a progressive libertarian. I think pure libertarianism is a good base, a good launching platform, but it's sometimes a bit Utopian when it comes to a laissez-faire economics.

Businesses should have freedom to operate, but, personally, I can only trust them so far. And you can say the same about the state, too.

So how do you find the balance? Too much state, and the populace is repressed. A total lack of state, and a private monopoly can accomplish the same repression.

It's a really difficult balancing act.

Again, I respect this position. I get frustrated with those who want to BASE policy on race. But those who simply CONSIDER race when making or discussing policy have a very legitimate point.

After the heated nature of this thread, I am glad we could find some middle-ground on this. :-)

I think that's true. But again, having grown up in rural Western Maryland, and having spent time in most of WV, it frustrates me that poor whites in those areas aren't represented by an advocacy group. (As I said before, I don't really want them to be, but it is frustrating that other groups of people have advocacy groups and lobbyists, but rural white America doesn't -- at least as far as I know.)

I understand your POV and I actually have some sympathies with what you're saying. Every group deserves it's fair representation, and it's easy for some less-off Americans to be overlooked because of a false impression. Being white in the U.S. isn't an automatic pass to awesomeness. Heck, anyone can take a listen to a bluegrass song to understand the struggle Americans of all color have had.

If you read this whole, long post . . . thanks for listening.

[hkHog]

The problem is that White conservatives see themselves as being "race neutral," when that isn't always the case. Majority and minority groups each have their own concerns and goals, and sometimes neither side crosses the boundaries to explore each side's views.

When conservatives imply that unemployment shouldn't be extended because it "makes people lazy," who do you think they are talking about? When conservatives in Tennessee suggest the need for a "civics test" in order to vote, who do they think are targeted (and have been targeted in the past by such "tests)?

What you are saying is unbelievably racist. Here you are implying that minorities are unemployed, lazy, and would not be able to pass a civics test? Please tell us all the other ways you think that minorities are inferior.

[Baculus]

What you are saying is unbelievably racist. Here you are implying that minorities are unemployed, lazy, and would not be able to pass a civics test? Please tell us all the other ways you think that minorities are inferior.

It has nothing to do with the capability of blacks to pass such tests. Previously in America, "tests" such as so-called literacy tests were used to prevent blacks from voting. To quote from the below linked article:

Prior to passage of the federal Voting Rights Act in 1965, Southern (and some Western) states maintained elaborate voter registration procedures whose primary purpose was to deny the vote to those who were not white," a website for civil rights veterans explains. "In the South, this process was often called the 'literacy test.' In fact, it was much more than a simple test, it was an entire complex system devoted to denying African-Americans (and in some regions, Latinos) the right to vote.

Because the Freedom Movement was running "Citizenship Schools" to help people learn how to fill out the forms and pass the test, Alabama changed the test 4 times in less than two years (1964-1965)," the site adds. "At the time of the Selma Voting Rights campaign there were actually 100 different tests in use across the state. In theory, each applicant was supposed to be given one at random from a big loose-leaf binder. In real life, some individual tests were easier than others and the registrar made sure that Black applicants got the hardest ones.

http://rawstory.com/2010/02/tea-party-opening-speaker-suggests-blacks-voting/

Until the signing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, many Americans of African descent had been denied the right to vote by a carefully orchestrated campaign, first used in the state of Mississippi in 1890, to prevent their influence in the American political system for 75 years, primarily through the use of the poll tax and literacy tests. These strategies were later adopted throughout the southern United States as a means to deny Black people the right to vote.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/voting-rights-act-1965-ended-use-literacy-tests

I think civics should be strongly emphasized in school, but I am weary of a "testing" system for voting which could be manipulated to keep out supposed undesirables from participating in a vote.

[Teller]

I did read that entire post, Bac. And I'd be more than happy to continue the point-by-point agreement/refutation, but I'm in about 98.4% on the same page with that entire post. And what fun is agreeing with someone on a message board?

I enjoyed the discussion today, man. And I'm glad we were able to chill out a little bit (sorry again for getting too heated/accusatory) and find a good bit of common ground. You're a good dude, and I'll see you again soon when your inner pinko-commie comes out.

[Baculus]

I did read that entire post, Bac. And I'd be more than happy to continue the point-by-point agreement/refutation, but I'm in about 98.4% on the same page with that entire post. And what fun is agreeing with someone on a message board?

I enjoyed the discussion today, man. And I'm glad we were able to chill out a little bit (sorry again for getting too heated/accusatory) and find a good bit of common ground. You're a good dude, and I'll see you again soon when your inner pinko-commie comes out.

Glad you made it through that post, since it was one of my typical, long winded responses. And I am also sorry about the heated/accusatory exchange as well: I know you have a fair, even-handed nature in our discussions, even when in disagreement, so you didn't deserve it. I just had a monetary lapse of reason. :-) Plus, it's easy to let outside stuff upset our little bubble here in the Tailgate.

I also look forward to the future exchanges!

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

At the end of the day, the Tea Party exists because there is a ****** in the White House. So...take that as you will.

[twa]

Keep telling yourself that ...and them:)

Sounds like a sound plan.

[Baculus]

It should be no surprise that some of us see racist or bigoted elements in the Tea Party, especially when you see stuff such as this:

And then we have memories such as this picture from the 60s:

"Race mixing is communism!"

The red baiting and xenophobic language from some Tea Partiers simply remind us of conservatives from days past who were anti-communists and against the civil rights movement. In many ways, elements of the Tea Party movement are their political heirs: they use the same language and wrap themselves in the flag and in a sort of American-orthodox Christianity.

With the large amount of red baiting engaged by the Right against Obama, along with some of the rather unsavory language being used, it's no wonder Americans can't figure out what's going on with the movement. If they don't want to be seen as another run-of-the-mill racist, they need to do something to separate themselves, in action or language.

My question is, have they done that and will they do that, or is this a silly question (since they really don't have a national leadership and each Tea Party group probably doesn't feel responsible for the actions of others)?

Some of the Americans who were against the civil rights movement claimed they were for states' rights, a strong national defense (they supported the war in Vietnam), strong Christian values (since they thought secularism was "socialism" and "trying to destroy America"), and they were anti-union and anti-organized labor. As mentioned, they were also strongly anti-communism, which is probably one of the strongest trends in the Tea Party.

With the above paragraph in mind, what are the ideological differences between the folks in the above black and white photograph and the modern Tea Party movement? Is it the same conservative populism, just a few decades later?

I know all Tea Partiers are not the same and they can't all be lumped together. But if you're going to involved yourself in this "movement," then you better know who is standing next to you at the barricades.

[twa]

I guess ya got to play the card ya got bac....have fun:drooley:

[Baculus]

I guess ya got to play the card ya got bac....have fun:drooley:

It would appear my card is an ace since you didn't give any resistance at all before folding. :-P

Can you explain the ideological differences between the Tea Party and some of those folks in the photograph (some of whom are probably Dixiecrats)? This is a straight-up question.