View Full Version : "Imagine if the Tea Party Was Black"

04-24-2010, 01:03 PM
Let’s play a game, shall we? The name of the game is called “Imagine.” The way it’s played is simple: we’ll envision recent happenings in the news, but then change them up a bit. Instead of envisioning white people as the main actors in the scenes we’ll conjure - the ones who are driving the action - we’ll envision black folks or other people of color instead. The object of the game is to imagine the public reaction to the events or incidents, if the main actors were of color, rather than white. Whoever gains the most insight into the workings of race in America, at the end of the game, wins.

So let’s begin.

Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters —the black protesters — spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn’t like were enforced by the government? Would these protester — these black protesters with guns — be seen as brave defenders of the Second Amendment, or would they be viewed by most whites as a danger to the republic? What if they were Arab-Americans? Because, after all, that’s what happened recently when white gun enthusiasts descended upon the nation’s capital, arms in hand, and verbally announced their readiness to make war on the country’s political leaders if the need arose.

Imagine that white members of Congress, while walking to work, were surrounded by thousands of angry black people, one of whom proceeded to spit on one of those congressmen for not voting the way the black demonstrators desired. Would the protesters be seen as merely patriotic Americans voicing their opinions, or as an angry, potentially violent, and even insurrectionary mob? After all, this is what white Tea Party protesters did recently in Washington.

Imagine that a rap artist were to say, in reference to a white president: “He’s a piece of shit and I told him to suck on my machine gun.” Because that’s what rocker Ted Nugent said recently about President Obama.

Imagine that a prominent mainstream black political commentator had long employed an overt bigot as Executive Director of his organization, and that this bigot regularly participated in black separatist conferences, and once assaulted a white person while calling them by a racial slur. When that prominent black commentator and his sister — who also works for the organization — defended the bigot as a good guy who was misunderstood and “going through a tough time in his life” would anyone accept their excuse-making? Would that commentator still have a place on a mainstream network? Because that’s what happened in the real world, when Pat Buchanan employed as Executive Director of his group, America’s Cause, a blatant racist who did all these things, or at least their white equivalents: attending white separatist conferences and attacking a black woman while calling her the n-word.

Imagine that a black radio host were to suggest that the only way to get promoted in the administration of a white president is by “hating black people,” or that a prominent white person had only endorsed a white presidential candidate as an act of racial bonding, or blamed a white president for a fight on a school bus in which a black kid was jumped by two white kids, or said that he wouldn’t want to kill all conservatives, but rather, would like to leave just enough—“living fossils” as he called them—“so we will never forget what these people stood for.” After all, these are things that Rush Limbaugh has said, about Barack Obama’s administration, Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama, a fight on a school bus in Belleville, Illinois in which two black kids beat up a white kid, and about liberals, generally.

Imagine that a black pastor, formerly a member of the U.S. military, were to declare, as part of his opposition to a white president’s policies, that he was ready to “suit up, get my gun, go to Washington, and do what they trained me to do.” This is, after all, what Pastor Stan Craig said recently at a Tea Party rally in Greenville, South Carolina.

Imagine a black radio talk show host gleefully predicting a revolution by people of color if the government continues to be dominated by the rich white men who have been “destroying” the country, or if said radio personality were to call Christians or Jews non-humans, or say that when it came to conservatives, the best solution would be to “hang ‘em high.” And what would happen to any congressional representative who praised that commentator for “speaking common sense” and likened his hate talk to “American values?” After all, those are among the things said by radio host and best-selling author Michael Savage, predicting white revolution in the face of multiculturalism, or said by Savage about Muslims and liberals, respectively. And it was Congressman Culbertson, from Texas, who praised Savage in that way, despite his hateful rhetoric.

Imagine a black political commentator suggesting that the only thing the guy who flew his plane into the Austin, Texas IRS building did wrong was not blowing up Fox News instead. This is, after all, what Anne Coulter said about Tim McVeigh, when she noted that his only mistake was not blowing up the New York Times.

Imagine that a popular black liberal website posted comments about the daughter of a white president, calling her “typical redneck trash,” or a “whore” whose mother entertains her by “making monkey sounds.” After all that’s comparable to what conservatives posted about Malia Obama on freerepublic.com last year, when they referred to her as “ghetto trash.”

Imagine that black protesters at a large political rally were walking around with signs calling for the lynching of their congressional enemies. Because that’s what white conservatives did last year, in reference to Democratic party leaders in Congress.

In other words, imagine that even one-third of the anger and vitriol currently being hurled at President Obama, by folks who are almost exclusively white, were being aimed, instead, at a white president, by people of color. How many whites viewing the anger, the hatred, the contempt for that white president would then wax eloquent about free speech, and the glories of democracy? And how many would be calling for further crackdowns on thuggish behavior, and investigations into the radical agendas of those same people of color?

To ask any of these questions is to answer them. Protest is only seen as fundamentally American when those who have long had the luxury of seeing themselves as prototypically American engage in it. When the dangerous and dark “other” does so, however, it isn’t viewed as normal or natural, let alone patriotic. Which is why Rush Limbaugh could say, this past week, that the Tea Parties are the first time since the Civil War that ordinary, common Americans stood up for their rights: a statement that erases the normalcy and “American-ness” of blacks in the civil rights struggle, not to mention women in the fight for suffrage and equality, working people in the fight for better working conditions, and LGBT folks as they struggle to be treated as full and equal human beings.

And this, my friends, is what white privilege is all about. The ability to threaten others, to engage in violent and incendiary rhetoric without consequence, to be viewed as patriotic and normal no matter what you do, and never to be feared and despised as people of color would be, if they tried to get away with half the shit we do, on a daily basis.

Game Over.


04-24-2010, 01:40 PM
If the tea party was majority black the far left would wig and the right would embrace them.

If you have any doubt about it ... research how the dems treated the first modern tea party movement.

<span style='font-size: 26pt'><span style='font-family: Arial Black'>&gt;&gt;&gt;CLICK HERE AND LEARN&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mFEvrzoszg)</span></span>


04-24-2010, 01:42 PM
LOL, what a crock. It's hard to find a place to start.
Even though what is described here never happened"Armed men seen MIXING with protesters outside recent events held by President Obama acted within the law, the White House said Tuesday, attempting to allay fears of a security threat," The Washington Post reports. "Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said people are entitled to carry weapons outside such events if local laws allow it."

The only way anyone spit on anyone was in their imagination.

Not hard to imagine Kanye West is it, or Louis Farrakhan or Jeremiah Wright or Danny Glover or Harry Belafonte or Cornel West. It's funny that no one on the left that reads little tidbits of Coulter's articles understands satire.

04-24-2010, 04:15 PM
Excellent post, Sonoma. Truth vs. truthyness.

I haven't read further but my guess is that yugo will hurl a personal insult at you and dudley will swear that only libs would criticise the black protestors and that the Far Right
would embrace the dissent and protect the dissenters.

04-24-2010, 04:16 PM
LOL. Dead on with dudley. yugo hasn't seen it yet.

04-24-2010, 04:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL. Dead on with dudley. yugo hasn't seen it yet. </div></div>

I saw it Honduh, didn't need feel the need to comment until you chimed in with yet another stupid post. So here you go. Happy? Got the attention you so desperately crave? Feeling better now? If not maybe you should go fry up some baloney.

04-24-2010, 04:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL. Dead on with dudley. yugo hasn't seen it yet. </div></div>

Are you seriously congratulating yourself for your "prediction" on what someone would say, and hour and a half after they post it???


04-24-2010, 05:06 PM
Just read it, Steve.

Call me Nostradomus. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

04-24-2010, 08:39 PM
Imagine if it was all black woman.
Hot, sweaty and ready.

I'd be going in for a major booty fiesta.

Ankles behind ears and bodily fluids flying in all directions.

Yup nothing like a combination of violence and fear to drive up the mating instinct.

04-25-2010, 05:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL. Dead on with dudley. yugo hasn't seen it yet. </div></div>

Hondo lives in complete denial that it was the dems who opposed civil rights legislation ... led by his home state hero Robert Carlyle Cornelius Calvin Sale Junior Byrd ... and also the dems which persecuted MLK including tapping his phones illegally and also including his murder by long time demokook James Earl Ray.

The entire left lives in abject denial that Martin was a staunch conservative ... and his message has been bastardized by the poverty pimps of today.


04-25-2010, 07:06 AM
They are also in denile about the current professor King being with the Tea Party.

Actually she and the Nuge see eye to eye.

I would hazard to guess that we will never see an attack on the Ms King by the left.
Oh that would be precious though.

Chris Mathews shredding Ms King. Or Oberman. That would be a treasure to record and play over and over again.

04-25-2010, 07:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In “A Covenant With Life: Reclaiming MLK’s Legacy”, Dr. Alveda C. King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., states:

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>“My grandfather, Dr. Martin Luther King, Sr., or ‘Daddy King’, was a Republican and father of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who was a Republican.”</span>

It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. Why? It was the Democrats who Dr. King was fighting, and he would not have joined the Democratic Party, the party of segregation and the Ku Klux Klan.

To understand why MLK was a Republican, let’s take a walk through history.

The Republican Party - From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, theRepublican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>The Democratic Party - As author Michael Scheuer stated, the Democrat Party is the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.</span>


– Democrats fought to expand it, Republicans fought to ban it.

Democrats formed the Confederacy, seceded from the Union and fought a Civil War (1861 to 1865) – a war where over 600,000 citizens were killed, including many thousands of blacks – in order to keep blacks in slavery because the Democrats had built their economic base on the backs of black slaves.

Democrats enacted Fugitive Slave laws to keep blacks from escaping from plantations and instigated ” the 1856 Dred Scott decision which legally classified blacks as property. Democrats pushed to pass the Missouri Compromise to spread slavery into 50% of the new states. Democrats also pushed to achieve passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act that was designed to spread slavery into all of the new states.

Northern anti-Civil War Democrats, called “copperheads”, did not want to be drafted to fight in the Civil War.

Starting in 1861, they attacked blacks in virtually every Northern city and pushed for a negotiated peace that would have resulted in an independent Confederacy where blacks were kept in slavery.

In New York, anti-Civil War Democrats engaged in “Four Days of Terror” against the city’s black population from July 13-16, 1863.

The anti-Civil War chant of the Democrats, as reported by one Pennsylvania newspaper, was: <span style='font-size: 17pt'>“Willing to fight for Uncle Sam”, but not “for Uncle Sambo.”</span> These anti-Civil War Democrats verbally attacked Republican President Abraham Lincoln because he fought to free blacks from slavery and make his Emancipation Proclamation a reality – a Proclamation that became the source of the Juneteenth celebrations that occur in black communities today.

Republican President Dwight Eisenhower pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the famous 1954 “Brown v. Topeka Board of Education” decision that ended school segregation and the “separate but equal” doctrine created by the 1896 “Plessy v. Ferguson” decision.

In 1958, Eisenhower established a permanent Civil Rights Commission that had been rejected by prior Democrat presidents, including President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Little known by many today is the fact that it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In fact, Dirksen was instrumental to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dirksen wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. hailed Senator Dirksen’s “able and courageous leadership;” and “The Chicago Defender,” the largest black-owned daily at that time, praised Senator Dirksen “for the grand manner of his generalship behind the passage of the best civil rights measures that have ever been enacted into law since Reconstruction.”Democrats today ignore the pivotal role played by Senator Dirksen in obtaining passage of the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act, while heralding President Johnson as a civil rights advocate for signing the bill.

The chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd who filibustered against the bill for 14 straight hours before the final vote.

President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of the civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Senator Al Gore, Sr. And after he became president, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was a black Republican.

President Kennedy, through his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

The relentless disparagement of Dr. King by Democrats led to his being physically assaulted and ultimately to his tragic death. In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King’s leaving Memphis, Tennessee after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd called Dr. King a “trouble-maker” who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.

The “Southern Strategy” that began in the 1970’s was an effort by Nixon to get fairminded people in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were discriminating against blacks.

Georgia did not switch until 2004, and Louisiana was controlled by Democrats until the election of Republican Bobby Jindal, a person of color, as governor in 2007.</div></div>

&gt;&gt;&gt;THERE IS A REASON THE FAR LEFT HAS STRUGGLED TO DESTROY OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://romanticpoet.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/the-democrats-are-fighting-to-hide-the-truth-dr-martin-luther-king-jr-was-a-republican/)


04-25-2010, 07:36 AM
&gt;&gt;&gt;MARTIN LUTHER KING JUNIOR WOULD <span style='font-size: 26pt'>NEVER</span> HAVE BEEN A MEMBER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqfRn2V-NxM)


04-25-2010, 07:44 AM
Thread started on a ridiculous notion, and immediately trolled by hondo.


04-25-2010, 08:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the tea party was majority black the far left would wig and the right would embrace them </div></div>

Once again you avoid the question by screaming, "the far left, Obama...".

Try and stay on topic.


04-26-2010, 04:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the tea party was majority black the far left would wig and the right would embrace them </div></div>

Once again you avoid the question by screaming, "the far left, Obama...".

Try and stay on topic.

Q </div></div>

So that the question and reply was beyond your level of English comprehension ...but the request of the question was for an opinion of what would happen if the TP movement was primarily black?

Well, actually it was a regurgitation of statist blather intended to make one appear as learned when all it did was make one appear manipulated ... but, I digress.

In response I gave an opinion, and one based on hard historical fact, of what would happen ... in combination with data showing that the actual roots of the modern TP was predominantly black.

The fact that you don't like the facts doesn't void the facts.

The fact that you wish the facts weren't true doesn't void the facts.

The fact that you ignore the facts doesn't void the facts.

The fact that you don't seem to understand the facts doesn't void the facts.

The facts are still the facts and ... as they have always and will always be ... the facts are such stubborn things.


04-26-2010, 05:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In response I gave an opinion, and one based on hard historical fact, of what would happen ... in combination with data showing that the actual roots of the modern TP was predominantly black. </div></div>


Did you get that from Glenn Beck? LOL

........... the fact that like there was no T Party when MLK was alive[ duh] and that now only 1% of the TPs are black escapes you?

Q..........black is white.....up is down in the LWW world /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

04-27-2010, 03:57 AM
Please ... buy an English language dictionary so you can understand the meaning of words such as "ROOTS" ... we will all appreciate it.