The People's View: Let's Talk Some R-E-S-P-E-C-T

[FrenchieCat]

Let's Talk Some R-E-S-P-E-C-T: The Ugly Racism on the Fringe Left
Monday, December 13, 2010

There was a point in my life when I used to think racism was the sole property of the political fringe Right. Lately, I have been disabused of that notion. Actually, that disillusionment has been hitting me for a while, almost from the start of President Barack Obama's term. I do want to clarify something: there are legitimate criticisms of this President, and not every criticism of his is racist. But what has been deafeningly racist is not so much the disagreement but the disrespect.

Disrespect of the President - the first black President (what, you're uncomfortable that I mention that fact and made it bold? Well then get ready for a lot of discomfort.) - has reached a pivotal point from the fringe Left. Why does it matter more coming from the Left? Because the Left is supposed to be better than this, and because the racism on the fringe Left permits the racism on the Right. Every time a Right-wing fringe person says something racist, they can point their fingers right back and say, hey, look what the "Left" did, so why isn't it okay for us?

But let's get back to the scathing, bold, unapologetic disrespect against the first black President coming from the Left. First, the seething undertone: the dumb, spineless, stupid, black guy doesn't know what he's doing; he needs to do what the smart, spine-y, know-it-all, mostly white armchair activists tell him to. I mean, what does the black man who grew up in a single-parent household and spent much of his adult life as a community organizer in the inner cities know about the plight of the poor and the downtrodden? He needs to listen to us primarily white "progressives" who've never done much more than donate to the occasional food bank to help the poor.

And when we tell him to, he needs to sacrifice the jobless, the working poor, the middle class and struggling students at the alter of some grand "principle" we want to uphold. If he makes a different decision, we are going to sit in front of our keyboards, or behind our TV cameras and throw insults at him in terms that would be unthinkable for us to use against a white president, much less a white Democratic president. We're going to blacken the black President's face while we pick a clip that whitens a white Republican Leader's face and put them right next to each other.
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2010/12/lets-talk-some-r-e-s-p-e-c-t-ugly.html#disqus_thread

[Number23]

1. Oh you gotta see this

Check out this comment from one of the mods on that site:

zizi2 2 hours ago in reply to Deaniac83
Deaniac,
What we have taking place is a convergence of different factors, in addition to all that you have said. I'll try to shed some light:

1.Transference: It's a term in psychology referring to the tendency of a person so scarred from a traumatic event or abuser that they "transfer" their anger onto another person, usually an ally who is the easiest to reach. These self-professed liberals/progressives have been whiplashed from the capacity of Wingnuts to seemingly get their way ALL the time, and never facing consequences for their vile behavior. Their anger is a direct barometer to their sense of ideological DEFEAT. Bottom line: In order fro them to feel defeated, it means they never first defined VICTORY on their own terms, but the wingnuts'. So their cry is "why has Pres. Obama not brought VICTORY on wingnut terms?.

2. Mercenary incentive: Immediately after the 2008 elections, David Sirota, Jane Hamsher, Cenk Uyger and others loudly opined about how they were going to deal with the likely shortfall in cyber traffic and ad-click revenues with a President in office from their ideological ranks. Their behavior shows the fruits of the Faustian bargain they struck: i.e. to make money as contrarians. They have no actual commitment to any policy cause. Notice their reactions are always predictable no matter what policy issue is on the table. No sane person remains a ONE NOTE track on every single issue in their lives. Their one chorus tells us all there is to know about their motives.

3. The tweeterization of News: More importantly how is it the same people appear as expert pundits on EVERY single policy debate? It used to be that real journalists, no matter how brilliant they are as generalists, CANNOT claim to have disciplinary expertise in more than one or two areas. Yet these fauxgressives know every thing? The foreign media truly laughs at the total lack of serious expertise in American media reportage. BBC invites people who actually know the technical details of policy to talk about said policy. Here we are being "informed" by idiots. This is anti-intellectualism, of the left wing variety, no different from the right wing's.

4. Exotic ideas about Black Civil Rights Struggles: (Number23 edit: S/he gets to the nitty AND the gritty right here) The fauxgressives learned nothing other than the sanitized Cliff's Notes versions of the civil rights struggles of minorities. They never grasped the true nature of those struggles as "PAINFULLY SLOW" and often "OBSTACLE RIDDEN" processes that often took one step forward to three steps backward. Heck they have no idea how long the protests against the Vietnam war took. So it is very easy for them to be keyboard commandos. They wanted a time-warped version of the black and white newsreels they've seen on PBS about struggle, to OBSERVE from behind the safety of their keyboards. In other words they wanted the REVOLUTION TWEETED in 140 CHARACTERS, with a Gil-Scot Heron Swagga. So if they are not getting it, then Pres. Obama must be no good.

5. They need a Janitorial Presidency: Overt and residual features of White privilege. Some of these folks remain willfully or inadvertently unaware of the baked-in cosmology of white privilege. It manifests itself in the expectations you mention. To them a black person cannot be average. Either they are superhuman or mediocre, or both. Initially they imagined candidate Obama to be "magical', just like in the movies or in sports. But when they now take a closer look at the complex human being that he is with flaws, their new default posture is that he must be mediocre.

I could go on and on....

In a perfect world, we could discuss these issues without certain people feeling "victimized," "insulted" and caught up in a "broad brush smear campaign" Until that miraculous day comes, all I can say is -- DAYUMM!!! If this doesn't hit the whining folks square in the jewels, I don't know what will.

[FrenchieCat]

2. I couldn't have said it better myself!

In other words they wanted the REVOLUTION TWEETED in 140 CHARACTERS, with a Gil-Scot Heron Swagga. So if they are not getting it, then Pres. Obama must be no good.

[nofurylike]

3. excellent!! thank you for posting this, Number23! nt

[Number23]

5. You are most welcome, my sweet!

:pals:

[nofurylike]

7. grin

:pals:

:hug:

[nofurylike]

4. K&spiritR! this is great!! thank you for posting it, FrenchieCat! nt

[treestar]

6. Great point

It's not the disagreement, it is the disrespect, whether it comes from Joe Wilson or from the professional left.