On the morning of September 15, 2009, said Representative Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.):
In a recent article, conservative commentator Thomas Sowell, an African American, examined some of President Obama's claims about the health care reform legislation moving through the Congress. I wanted to quote some excerpts from his column that I found insightful....If one opposed to the President's legislative agenda can find a detrimental interpretation of that agenda and its implementation, it is a great thing. It has been done millions of times before and understandably so. However, Foxx's statement goes beyond emphasizing Sowell's points of contention; she also "slips in" a mention of Sowell's race. Why? Why would one make it a point to include such an extraneous piece of info unless (s)he felt it was, in fact, anything but extraneous?
I can answer that
rhetorical question: Sowell's race was relevant because, in order to convince those who would hear her message that disagreement with Obama is NOT about his race, she used evidence that even his own kind disagree with him. That is noteworthy because, as we all know, all African-Americans think alike. Even a black man disagrees with Obama, and if a black man can go against his very inclination toward blackness, it must mean that 1) there is really something wrong with Obama's health care reform plans and 2) the criticism levied against him is warranted.
Unfortunately, Foxx's dumb statement and its disgusting underlying assumptions are only the tip of the iceberg of what some Repugs title as anything other than racism:
But, no, it's certainly not about race.
Understandably, the President distanced himself from former President Jimmy Carter's observation that, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man." And it is only understandable in that his post mandates extreme caution; he could not adopt such a polarizing (oh, what a day; the truth is polarizing) stance without political sanction. But President Carter is absolutely right on both accounts: 1) there is "animosity toward" the President because of his race and 2) and there absolutely is an "overwhelming portion" of it. Of course, on that last point, some of those who would like to dismiss Carter's concerns repeatedly conflate "overwhelming PORTION" and "overwhelming MAJORITY." The former does not mean majority, but it would be so much more convenient for Republicans if it did. And so they proceed as if it does. There is nothing in Carter's statement that strips reasonableness from ALL or a majority of protesters, that posits all or a majority of protesters as racist. But in order to position Carter for the onslaught for dare speaking the truth, they have got to mold what he said into something both offensive enough to justify the attack and similar enough that stupid people buy it.
For many, the White House has been painted a nasty color (guess which), and it's simply too unbearable. No one says "nigger" aloud anymore. It is not tolerated. But they will say that Michelle Obama is trash (our dear Tammy Bruce) and that President Obama is an "undocumented worker" (protesters).
But hey, as long as these people are presenting themselves as protesting tyrannical rule, how could we ever cast them as racists? Right?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(391 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
