NAACP = The Negro Assault Against Clarence’s Person

That spavined attention whore who runs Big BowelMovement is still huffing glue (via BJ):

I’d have a long discussion with her, and I’d tell her that I’m not one of these people in this country that thinks racism doesn’t exist. And that I’m not one of these people who says that she hasn’t suffered from racism. And that the scars of her racism aren’t warranted. But I’d also tell her that my passion in life and my political trajectory from left to right was born from watching the Clarence Thomas hearings. I didn’t understand how he NAACP sat on its hands while privileged white gentlemen hammered him mercilessly and humiliated him and the media and the NAACP allowed for it to happen.

(You’ll have to forgive Andy for getting Anita Hill confused with Clarence Thomas. Not only has epoxy snorting worked a number on his synapses, but they all ... Well, you know.)

And Clarence isn’t the only victim! M. Lightfart has also been cut and he’s bleeding ... But he hasn’t noticed because someone let him get his hands on a big can of contact cement:

As difficult as it probably was for her, it’s been difficult for me as well, especially to hear her hurl an accusation of racism at me, when my motivation is absolutely pure and is driven by a desire for this country to move beyond its horrid racist past.

To a wonderful racist future!

If this goat’s fud winds up in court Orly Taitz will have to up her game to hang on to the Crazy Courtroom Critter crown.

Posted by Hunger Tallest Palin on 07/30/10 at 11:19 PM • Permalink

Categories: PoliticsNuttersTeabaggery

Share this post:  Share via Twitter   Share via BlinkList   Share via   Share via Digg   Share via Email   Share via Facebook   Share via Fark   Share via NewsVine   Share via Propeller   Share via Reddit   Share via StumbleUpon   Share via Technorati  

If this goat’s fud winds up in court Orly Taitz will have to up her game to hang on to the Crazy Courtroom Critter crown.

Hey, she could represent him!

I think there may be an element of truth in that farrago of bullshit. I think that Breitbart, and lots of righties, were excited at the thought that Bush had found a black guy who agreed with them on every conservative point to serve on the supreme court.  In backing CT they imagined, emotionally, they’d get a pass for centuries of discrimination and their own real feelings of racial hatred. Kind of a sammy davis junior style thing. Its the “one black friend” syndrome. When CT turned out to be the one black guy every conservative could love—hell, he even discriminated against women and workers and was a pervert, what’s not to love!—he instantly became a higher value emotional target.  And what happened to him felt like it was happening to them. 

I think, on some emotional level, Breitbart really believes this.  Its the mean old NAACP that prevented Breitbart from getting any kind of social credit for supporting CT who was A BLACK GUY and you leftist liberals always say that conservatives are racists and if I were really a racist I wouldn’t have stomached CT on the supreme court. Lather, rinse, repeat.

This leads to my other point which is that I really don’t see the utility, and I see great harm, in the word “racist” at this point. Its too indeterminate.  The right wing has spent a ton of time, in a neo nazi kind of way, obscuring the fact that the objectionable part of White Racism is that its targeted to non white people and people without power.  Its not the race of racism thats the problem, its the majoritarian/whiteness/oppression part.  I’m very careful not to lable things “racist” in a discussion with conservatives. I just call them what they are: divisive, rude, intemperate, untrue, demeaning, historically inaccurate, offensive. I don’t say things are offensive *:because* they are racist, I say that they are racist (tending to divide the races/tending to disparage one race) because they are offensive.  This seems to work a whole lot better. Because the right wing—beck/o’reilly followers etc… are very well trained in an almost pavlovian way to reject accusations of white racism with counter examples of black racism.  You cut the legs out from under them by saying “I don’t care if its racist or not, it was offensive.”  Its sort of like the observation, made frequently over at Roy’s, that the principle objection right wingers have to the use of the n**er is that “white people can’t use it but black people can.”  The best thing to say is “go ahead and use it, you’ll sound like an asshole and someone will beat the crap out of you. But go ahead and use it. “


I agree, although I think that white conservative have attempted to co-opt the whole racist concept.  You sort of see it with the word “feminist”.  That was twisted and tortured to the point that women refused to use it because it was so negative.  I think people of color who are reminded of their “non-whiteness” have more understanding of the word racist that someone as clueless as Breitbart.

The best thing to say is “go ahead and use it, you’ll sound like an asshole and someone will beat the crap out of you. But go ahead and use it.

See, you’re nicer than me. I’d tell them “Oh, I know lots of black people who use it all the time and don’t mind when white people do the same. Really, it’s cool. Don’t worry about using it around black people.”

And then laugh as they turn into Steve Zahn in the bar in Treme getting his ass kicked for his casual use of same term.

As I’ve perhaps mentioned a time or two—I’m not nice.

And then laugh as they turn into Steve Zahn in the bar in Treme getting his ass kicked for his casual use of same term.

I was thinking the same thing, although poor Davis actually doesn’t have a racist bone in his body. 

I do see your point Aimai when you’re talking about this stuff with conservatives - why key up their talking points - but I disagree that re-naming it “offensive”, etc. is more than a temporary conversational solution.  Racist behavior is definitely offensive but it’s a lot more than that - it’s an institutional oppression of people based on racial differences. 

Racism had been driven underground for the most part and publicly confined to dog whistles, innuendos and behavior that couldn’t always be legally challenged.  Now, since the election of a black president, true racism has become much more overt and pointed.  Dancing around it and calling it more acceptable names will only empower the Breitbart’s and other offenders.

Perhaps we should consider substituting the term “bigotry.” The right is congratulating itself on not considering blacks to be inherently biologically inferior to whites. Witness their happiness to take “right-thinking” blacks, like CT—and move them to the front seat where the cameras can see them, as there are so few. They consider that a reasonable stance, and ignore the many inarguably racist incidences of their people posting images of the White House lawn covered in watermelons, or Teabaggers with chimp dolls at Teabagger events.

The right wing considers it respectable and rational to assume that a most blacks in this country are trying to get by on their skin-color, and that any prominent black’s achievements are merely the results of Affirmative Action. They point to Obama as having only gotten where he is because of his color. That is certainly bigotry, and cultural racism. And the angry whites preparing for the onslaught of their imagined enemies are not gifted with insight, particularly.

Most not-very-competent angry white dudes aren’t going to say, “I must not have gotten that job because frankly, I’m not very good. AND I’m unpleasant, to boot. No wonder that person who happens to be whatever was kept on!”

I agree that “offensive” is not a sufficient term. But that’s because we are talking about multiple kinds of situations.  If I’m arguing about a policy, I don’t call that “offensive” I talk directly about its history and its implications.  Its only if we’re talking about opinions, or ideas, or language that I’d use such a weak word as offensive. 

But again, I don’t think we can attack right wing policy ideas with blanket terms like “racism.”  Destroying the welfare state, attacking national health care, is racist. If we weren’t living with the legacy of slavery and the civil war we could easily have a unified national health care policy. But the lower level of the right wing, the average white voer, simply is too well defended to hear or think that through.  They think they are willing to see white people punished for poverty too. So how can the be racist?  I think we have to find other ways, or rather I prefer to find other ways, to attack this complacency and this ignorance and I just don’t think the term racism, or bigotry, does that. Because they’ve really worked to divorce their policies and their ideology (for the most part) from mere racial binary thinking.  Except for the stone neo nazis and race seperatists much of white american racism is so heavily intermixed with randian and capitalist fantasies that you can’t really attack it with a single, blanket, term. You always have to work on a total undermining of the entire edifice of race/class prejudice.  Hell, you are in effect undermining Horatio Alger and the myth of the heroic individual every time you simply talk about social structural issues.  I guess what I’m arguing is that racism in its pure “I hate people of other races” sense is too global and doesn’t really reflect modern american racism. Its part of it, but its not the whole shebang.


“I don’t care if its racist or not, it was offensive.”

And they will eventually counter that you’re a member of the P.C. police. Because the fact is, they don’t want to hear any criticism, period. When it comes to criticism of their various -isms, they don’t believe the people complaining have a right to complain.

I do get what you’re saying Aimai, and I do agree that multiple kinds of situations call for addressing problems differently.  I don’t think right wing policy solutions are inherently racist - I think they’re more based on social structure.  Sherrod made a great point when she said that, in the story she was telling, it was not about race, it was about haves v. have nots.  This, to me, defines most of right wing policy - protecting the haves and kicking aside the have nots. Under their thinking if you’re poor it’s because you deserve to be poor.

All of this is different from actual instances of racism directed towards another individual and that’s when I think it should be called what it is.

@HTP - exactly.  I have had the conversation devolve down to that when discussing racism, offensive comments and whether or not illegal immigrants pay taxes or not (they do).

I don’t have any problem handling the “pc police” challenge. Because I don’t ever say that something is merely offensive.  You have to pick your language and your battles very carefully.  This is never going to be easy and there’s no “killer app” no short, snappy, comeback that wins every argument.  But I think its worth thinking through the ins and outs of these debates and realizing that some words are red herrings, or overused.  I only bother to tell people something is “offensive” if I think they are the kind of people who don’t like to think of themselves as offensive. Its not something I ever bother to say to the kind of right winger whoprides himself on being offensive and easily offended.  You have to pick and choose and know your audience.


What many “conservatives” don’t seem to understand or want to acknowledge is that just because we are African American, doesn’t mean that we can’t distinguish the character of one of our own without them having to say one word.  I watched CT’s hearings before the judiciary committee, and Anita Hill’s, too.  I believe Ms. Hill told the truth about what type of person CT really is.  It took a lot of courage to testify before the committee and take a chance on ruining her own career. 

Some “conservatives” thought that Michael Steele, Ken Blackwell, Ron Christie, Dr. Fisher, Larry Elder, and Alan Keyes, etc., would attract more AAs to the Republican Party, and it didn’t happen.  What the “conservatives” didn’t/don’t know is that we’ve been dealing with shysters of this sort for hundreds of years.  We know that the political ideology of these individuals is not in line with ours for the most part.  They sold themselves for a chance at fame and fortune.  We AAs, in general, can recognize a rat when we see one.  I have no desire to associate with anyone who doesn’t have compassion for his/her fellow man, chooses corporations over people, feels it’s okay to destroy the environment for profit, and seeks to divide instead of unite.  And above all else, I will not affiliate myself with a group of individuals who think that I need them to tell me for whom to cast my votes.

Page 1 of 1 pages

Sorry, commenting is closed for this post.

<< Back to main