Wednesday, November 02, 2005

When is racism not really racism?

Reading a few news stories today, that seemed to be a popular question: When is racism not racism?

The answer: When it is a liberal being racist against a conservative black person.

Lest you think me making this up, I offer two direct examples:

The first was from an article in World Net Daily that references an Oct 31st editorial in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which made some remarks about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in context of the racial make up of the SCOTUS.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47167
http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/oct05/367053.asp

The editorial says:

"Another minus is that the nomination lessens the court's diversity. O'Connor herself had expressed the desire that her successor be a woman. O'Connor seems to have grown wiser about diversity as a result of her Supreme Court experience. She came to see the virtues of having a court that looks like America - doubtless a big reason she softened her opposition to affirmative action in recent years."

"In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America."


So apparently because Clarence Thomas has conservative values, he is not black enough to be black? This is not the first such comment regarding Justice Thomas. Last December Harry Reid made comments to the effect that Thomas, who was then being vetted about as a possible new Chief Justice for the then falter Rehnquist, was an embarrassment, which critics suggest was concerning his maintaining conservative values incompatible with the liberal talking points.

But this is really minor league on comparison to the brutal and overtly racist attack on Maryland Lt Governor Michael Steele, another conservative African American.

Courtesy of Captain's Quarters:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005716.php

The Democrats in Maryland have decided that they like racism, especially racist stereotypes such as slave gibberish and minstrel-show caricatures of African-Americans, and have publicly come out in favor of their use in political campaigns. While such imagery would get a Republican immediately denounced as a hatemonger, Democrats feel free to use them as long as their targets are conservative African-Americans, such as Michael Steele:

"Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican."

"Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log."

""There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names," said a campaign spokesman for Kweisi Mfume, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People."

"State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, a black Baltimore Democrat, said she does not expect her party to pull any punches, including racial jabs at Mr. Steele, in the race to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes."

""Party trumps race, especially on the national level," she said. "If you are bold enough to run, you have to take whatever the voters are going to give you. It's democracy, perhaps at its worse, but it is democracy.""

"Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black."


The point they make is clear really, that racism will not be tolerated, until it is necessary.

What boggles me is that the Democrats claim to be the party of tolerance and opportunity for people of color, the party of equality for all races. Ignoring for a moment the history of the democratic party, its own overt opposition to civil rights in the middle of the 20th century, their modern position shows such an arrogant streak of hypocrisy that it turns my stomach.

Racism is racism, and no amount of pandering, rationalization and justification will change that.

The people mentioned above are nothing more then ideological hypocrites of the first order. They are also childish immature idiots, who rather then confront an opponent on his actions and beliefs, have fallen back to hate filled school yard taunting.

I expect them to start talking smack about his mother next, it would keep to the same program.

One other troubling aspect is the presumption that a person of African American Descent must embrace a liberal ideology. This presumption effectively forces them into a box of chosen, safe beliefs in order to have the benefit of respect for their heritage. Who exactly is oppressing who in this case?

If they truly represent the Democratic party and modern liberalism, then I have found one more reason to remain firmly independent.