A Forum for Opinions on News, Politics, and Life
July 24th, 2012
By Dan Miller
The meaning of “racism” has changed for the worse.
There was a time when the adjective “racist” was properly applied to those who based their judgments, words and deeds on race. People and organizations are now characterized as “racist,” or not, with little regard to what they think, say or do. “Racist” is now rarely applied to those who rely on, and actively seek to foster, racial hatred and to seek political and financial gain by doing so; perhaps that is because most who do it (and it has become quite fashionable) are in the Librul camp. They apply the term to others, however, with apparent relish.
According to this splendid article,
The rise of racism that has corresponded with Barack Obama’s presidency has been shockingly blatant and unapologetic. There is a frightening catharsis that comes from those who exclaim racial animosity towards our President, reflecting gratification at finally being able to free the hatred they had been forced to keep bottled up by society in the past.
Today, thanks to the Tea Party, Fox News and the rest of the MSM and the de-evolution of the GOP, there is no stigma against racism to act as a regulator for those who hate other races. In fact, one of the surest ways to get on the MSM is to spout something racist and your views will be publicized by “concerned” talking heads endlessly.
It was only a matter of time that this regressive aspect of our society, so much a part of the fabric of the Right Wing and the Republican Party, would eventually surface and become prominent in Mitt Romney’s “I’ll do whatever it takes to win!” campaign.
There has indeed been an increase in racism corresponding to President Obama’s ascent to the presidency, but I must confess that I see the context rather differently.
SENATOR LUCAS: What I am saying to you is Mitt Romney, he’s speaking to a segment of the population, who does not like to see people other than a White man in a White House or any other elected position.
Let’s be real clear about it … let’s be real clear Mitt Romney is speaking to a group of people out there who don’t like folks like Barack Obama in any elected or leadership position. We know what’s going on here and some people may be afraid to say it but I am not. I am not afraid to say it.
He’s speaking to that fringe out there who do not want to see anybody other than a white person in a leadership position. Senator Miller said it before she died and I agreed with her. They don’t want President Barack Obama in office as President and for all the reasons that you and I and a lot of other people understand.
HOST: Do you really believe now that this all about race?
LUCAS: I absolutely believe it’s all about race and for the first time I’ve convinced my children finally that racism is alive and well.
HOST: Even in Virginia?
LUCAS: In Virginia how about all across this nation. And especially in Virginia!
President Obama, not Governor Romney, has encouraged people to vote for him by appealing to them on the basis of race. Governor Romney has even declined to comment on the close, twenty year long, association of President Obama with the Revered Mr. “God Damn America” Wright. Doing so would be highly relevant to President Obama’s view of the United States and of her (as well as his) place in the world. Would it be “racist,” politically incorrect, or simply politically inconvenient for Governor Romney to mention it?
This YouTube video of our unifying, post-racial, post partisan President was posted by BarackObamadotcom on January 31st of this year. As of July 24th, it has had 2,704,562 “views,” 1,746 “likes” and 24,622 “dislikes.”
As I asked rhetorically here,
What reaction might there have been to a comparable pitch by a President McCain asking Caucasian-Americans to support his reelection candidacy and to vote for him? How about a web site comparable to this posted by a President McCain?
“Unexpectedly,” President Obama’s plea for Black support failed to mention the Reverend Mr. Wright; he rarely mentions him, with good reason. The good reverend was, however, mentioned — disparagingly but with ample support — by Bryan Ross in 2008 on ABC News. Mr. Ross is now quite deservedly in the dungeon for his unsupported and unsupportable on-air speculations that the shooter in Aurora, Colorado was a member of the vile Tea Party. Mr. Ross is probably not a legitimate candidate for the title “conservative extremist,” but might retroactively be so characterized because of the “racist” rant in this video.
It has been estimated that in 2008 ninety-six percent of Blacks who voted for a presidential candidate voted for Senator Obama. That percentage may change only minimally if at all this year. Stability or an increase, of course, would not seen by those in the Librul camp as “racist” because it’s in their favor and besides …
Race baiting has been defined as insinuating
that racism or bigotry is a dominant factor with regards to an event that either does not involve race or in which diverse cultures are involved are simply a minor element.
Blacks such as the Reverend Messrs Sharpton and Jackson, who promptly sought and found the
lime spot light when “White Hispanic” George Zimmerman killed sweet little Black child Trayvon Martin — President Obama said that if he had a son he would look like Trayvon — are not “racist.” Perhaps the FBI, which recently found no racial motivation in Mr. Zimmerman’s conduct, is “racist.” Black conservatives in growing numbers, such as Congressman West, Herman Cain, Thomas Sowell and Lloyd Marcus — and those of whatever race who support them — are “racist.” Will such “racist” conservatives have any discernible impact this year? Ever? In what direction? How about this egregiously “racist” motion picture?
Will it have any discernible impact this year? In what direction? Ever? Perhaps we will be able to make better guesses as to its impact following its first showing on July 27th. I wonder what percentage of Blacks will be in the audiences. How many will find it as burdensome to go to a theater as Libruls say it would be for them to obtain voter ID cards?
Even the names of various organizations still feature race: the Congressional Black Caucus, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Black Panthers and the like. Any organization such as the (non-existent) Congressional White Caucus, National Association for the Advancement of White People and White Panthers would be widely disparaged, by conservatives no less than by Libruls, as racist; they should be so disparaged because we need far less, not more, of that sort of rot. Yet our racist friends in the Librul camp continue to promote it, increasingly and without apparent shame. Do they so truly believe that those remaining on their plantation are so inferior — to themselves and to others — that they are incapable of enjoying prosperous and fulfilling lives outside it — to the point that they must use every racist device they can muster to help them by keeping them there? Or is it largely for political gain?
Hatred stimulated by lies told for political purposes has long been a great motivator, and lies gain credence with the frequency of their repetition. Whatever may be their other objectives, Libruls are fomenting the hatred and the dependency upon which they rely for political gain.
(This article was also posted at Dan Miller’s Blog.)
(To avoid spam, comments with three or more links will be held for moderation and approval.)
Copyright 2017 Opinion Forum