NAACP condemns racist elements in Tea Party

nighttimer · Jul 14, 2010

At the NAACP annual convention, delegates voted to condemn what they consider racist elements within the Tea Party movement:

Today, NAACP delegates passed a resolution to condemn extremist elements within the Tea Party, calling on Tea Party leaders to repudiate those in their ranks who use racist language in their signs and speeches.

The resolution came after a year of high-profile media coverage of attendees of Tea Party marches using vial, antagonistic racial slurs & images. In March, respected members of the Congressional Black Caucus reported that racial epithets were hurled at them as they passed by a Washington, DC health care protest. Civil rights legend John Lewis was called the “n-word” in the incident while others in the crowd used ugly anti-gay slurs to describe Congressman Barney Frank, a long-time NAACP supporter and the nation’s first openly gay member of Congress.

Missouri Representative Emmanuel Cleaver was spat on during the incident, and so it was particularly appropriate that the resolution was passed as NAACP delegates gathered in Kansas City for our 101st Annual Convention.

The proposed resolution had generated controversy on conservative blogs, where in some cases the language has been misconstrued to imply that the NAACP was condemning the entire Tea Party movement itself as racist.

link

Seattle Times editorial columnist Lynne Varner applauded the NAACP resolution as "right on time:"

Criticizing the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is as timeless and American as baseball. But no president in history has had so much racist vitriol directed at him as the current one, including being compared to a monkey and having his birthplace and religion endlessly questioned.

Much of the ire has come from members of the tea-party movement. Thus, a resolution by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People condemning racist elements of the nascent movement isn't surprising. Among the many racially tinged signs at tea-party rallies is my favorite: "Obama's Plan — White Slavery." Right.

The nation's oldest and largest civil-rights group is not only right on, they're right on time. The racial element of the tea-party movement is disturbing. At some point, Obama's race or just plain race comes up.
A University of Washington survey this spring found race, alongside politics and the size of government, to be key issues energizing the tea-party movement. One highlight: Respondents who believe the U.S. government has done too much to support blacks are 36 percent more likely to support the tea-party movement than those who are not.

The tea-party movement tries to hide behind limited government and restrained spending, classic — and in my view, unassailable — conservative tenets. But what separates this movement from the traditional Republican Party is the former's virulent anger directed at anyone who is not white, straight and Protestant.

Examples abound but most disturbing is Kentucky GOP Senate hopeful Rand Paul's criticism of the 1964 Civil Rights Act because he didn't think government ought to tell private restaurant owners who they can and cannot serve. That's an old argument used not just by opponents of integration efforts in the 1950s and '60s, but further back by slave owners who argued the federal government had no right to tell them what to do with their "property."

Perhaps the NAACP is looking for relevancy amid changing political dynamics. The tea-party movement ought to be looking for credibility among its many not-so-credible members. If this movement wants to move closer to the rational political milieu, it must get rid of the bigots. The GOP can recite chapter and verse about the danger of trying to hold onto all elements of a party while trying to keep the tent from crashing down.
Tea-party leaders argue that any racism is the responsibility of a few bad actors, not the larger movement.

One leader, Jenny Beth Martin, told CNN: "There certainly are people who have been involved in tea-party events or call themselves tea-party leaders who have done these things. And we've said we're not going to put up with it."

Say it again Jenny. And again. And mean it.

Rather than trying to sell mutton as lamb, the tea-party crowd has to acknowledge its racist elements and excise them. Absent the bigotry and opposition to Obama because of his skin color, real and legitimate concerns about the president, from his embrace of a stimulus spigot that doesn't seem to have an off switch to his fluctuations on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, would rise to the level of serious debate.

William Haskins · Jul 14, 2010

"vial"?

really?

SPMiller · Jul 14, 2010

Somebody doesn't pay for copyediting.

I do wonder why this took them so long. There have been racist elements in the so-called tea party since the beginning.

Don · Jul 14, 2010

Damn, the secret's out.

Hallmark and the tea partiers are part of a vast racist conspiracy.

Pick at a wound long enough, and it can become a really nasty infection. Maybe even life-threatening.

nighttimer · Jul 14, 2010

William Haskins said:
"vial"?

really?

Apparently so. When you're the nation's oldest civil rights organization it's the eyes that go first. The back and knees are kinda troublesome on rainy days.

But it's when you can't go that's the worst... :e2cry:

nighttimer · Jul 14, 2010

Don said:
Damn, the secret's out.

Hallmark and the tea partiers are part of a vast racist conspiracy.

Pick at a wound long enough, and it can become a really nasty infection. Maybe even life-threatening.

Snark aside, the NAACP's resolution simply condemns the racist hanger-ons among the Tea Party, Don. While spelling may not be the NAACP's thing, they didn't tar the whole movement with a broad brush.

Or are you inferring the Tea Partiers have duped the NAACP and they really are all racists?

Don · Jul 14, 2010

So should the tea partiers now condemn the racist element in the NAACP? Wouldn't that simply piss off NAACP members who are in no way racist?

Really, what's accomplished with all this besides more divisiveness?

Roger J Carlson · Jul 14, 2010

You know, I tried to find a link where the NAACP has repudiated Louis Farrakhan. Maybe someone could help me out.

nighttimer · Jul 14, 2010

Don said:
So should the tea partiers now condemn the racist element in the NAACP? Wouldn't that simply piss off NAACP members who are in no way racist?

Really, what's accomplished with all this besides more divisiveness?

C'mon, Don. You're way too smart to believe something that dumb.

The NAACP has its share of shortcomings. Getting into bed with Wells Fargo after dropping a lawsuit for predatory loan practices. Going after soft targets in the White community and ignoring hard problems in the Black community. Using 1960 tactics in a 2000 world. Dumb shit like the Hallmark card.

If you want to play "J'accuse" with the NAACP's "racist element" you're going to have to come up with some kind of evidence of it. I don't have any issue producing evidence that the Tea Party has a Negro problem.

There is a racist element in the Tea Party and you'd have to be willfully blind or Sarah Palin to ignore it. What's accomplished with this is it puts the Tea Party on notice that it should purge the bigots from the movement.

Any "divisiveness" started with the bad behavior of bigots at Tea Party protests. Pointing it out isn't divisive at all.

Don · Jul 14, 2010

Roger J Carlson said:
You know, I tried to find a link where the NAACP has repudiated Louis Farrakhan. Maybe someone could help me out.

Or even Reverand Wright.

nighttimer · Jul 14, 2010

Roger J Carlson said:
You know, I tried to find a link where the NAACP has repudiated Louis Farrakhan. Maybe someone could help me out.

Don said:
Or even Reverand Wright.

You left out Colin Ferguson, The Beltway Snipers, Idi Amin, Marion Berry and the films of Martin Lawrence.

I don't think any of them are NAACP members, but the day is young.

We can play this game of collective Black guilt as long as you guys want to. What I'm wondering is are you incapable of addressing the Tea Party's racism without getting defensive and falling back on a false dichotomy or is it you truly don't believe there's any racism within the movement?

Choose a partner and dance.

But while you're thinking it over, here's a little more food for thought.

Barack Obama compared to Hitler and Lenin in Tea Party billboard

A roadside billboard created by a branch of the Tea Party in Iowa comparing President Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin has been condemned by other groups in the movement.

The North Iowa Tea Party began displaying the sign in Mason City last week. It shows photographs of Mr Obama, the German Nazi leader and Russian communist with the statement: "Radical leaders prey on the fearful & naive."

The words "Democratic Socialism" are featured over Mr Obama's picture, over Hitler's photo is "National Socialism" and over Lenin's head is "Marxist Socialism." The word "Change" – Mr Obama's campaign slogan – is included on each photo.

North Iowa Tea Party co-founder Bob Johnson said the sign highlighted what the group argues is Mr Obama's support for socialism.

Placards with similar messages have been discouraged from tea party events after drawing negative publicity. Pictures of the president daubed with a Hitler moustache were commonly seen during the early days of the movement in protest at his health care reform.

Shelby Blakely, a spokesman for the national Tea Party Patriots, said the sign was not appropriate. She said her group opposed any such comparisons.

John White, state coordinator of the Iowa Tea Party movement, said such signs were distasteful. But he told Radio Iowa that he believed that everything Mr Obama had done was in "lock-step" with what Hitler did in his day.

The White House declined to comment.

link

Don · Jul 14, 2010

I condemn racism anywhere. By anybody. At any time.

I also condemn the concept of collective guilt. Heaped on anybody. At any time.

I'm also not too keen on pot-kettle accusations when they're both well past the boiling point already. Mote in thine own eye, and all that.

I think there's plenty of guilty parties to go around on all sides. I don't see how throwing rocks at each other's glass houses builds any sense of society. It's just another invitation to get something going so the jack-booted thugs can once again prove their invaluable importance to society.

hitchhiker · Jul 14, 2010

It's all for SHOW, but it was a smart move by the NAACP, politically anyway. We are living in an increasingly polarized society, where broad strokes of generalization are often slapped quickly on a group or an idea or a movement. Many questions remain and there are layers to everything, but few (left and right) are willing to try to understand another's position in relation to comments and actions, especially if those comments or actions are opposed to one's own view of things.

Are there racists in the Tea Party? Yep as sure as there are rascists in any organiztion, town, company, and neighborhood in America. Was that the initial (re)action in organizing the Tea Party? Absolutely not! I've read plenty of conservative opinions that probably began the debate over government intervention with W's time in office after passing the Patriot Act, which took away some potential freedoms, and with his reluctance to control the border. I think over time we've seen more and more of the population feeling that both of the dominant parties are becoming less able to legislate to the will of the people. You don't see it as much in local and state races because, well, they are more local and state. It's easier to pick up the phone and get connected with the elected official. For the US House and Senate, we don't see it so much because even if the official doesn't represent you in political matters the elected official has a greater chance at reelection simply by the power her or she has maintained in Washington, chairing committee and the like, which ultimately brings money and jobs to their respective states/districts.

The POTUS is a different animal altogether. Had the snarky Texas billionaire H ROSS PEROT won the election in 1992 (was it the Reform party?), I think we may have already seen an off-party candidate win a second Presidential election by now. The danger in such an action is that such a candidate usually dillutes the voting power of one of the major parties. It probably cost Bush Sr a second term in 1992 and I'm sure a behind-the-scenes network of organizers spent tons of money and time trying to persuade those voters (Probably Repubs in 1992) to re-allign with their party and platform. To the Democrat's credit their base of voters seems stronger and more united.

The long answer is yes there are rascists in the Tea Party - just like in every other element in life, but I don't think it was the basis for the movement. The bailouts to Freddie, Fannie, Wall Street and Banks coupled with the immmigration promises during the election and the tons of money spent on the stimulus package have been the deciding factors. This mess was not caused by the working blue collar of the white collar middle class, but we are the ones that will be paying for it, and we're not helpless or hopeless enough to receive any of the benefit. Yep the rich will pay more too, but for the super rich that mostly derive that net-worth to stocks tied to Wall Street and markets around the world, it was and is a win-win situation. The bailouts kept everything afloat, even taking some hits in the market, and even with shelling out a little more to Uncle Sam every year, they're still happy Americans.

Roger J Carlson · Jul 14, 2010

Don said:
I condemn racism anywhere. By anybody. At any time.

I also condemn the concept of collective guilt. Heaped on anybody. At any time.

I'm also not too keen on pot-kettle accusations when they're both well past the boiling point already. Mote in thine own eye, and all that.

Or hypocrisy posing as righteous indignation.

robeiae · Jul 14, 2010

nighttimer said:
But while you're thinking it over, here's a little more food for thought.

Barack Obama compared to Hitler and Lenin in Tea Party billboard

A roadside billboard created by a branch of the Tea Party in Iowa comparing President Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin has been condemned by other groups in the movement.

The North Iowa Tea Party began displaying the sign in Mason City last week. It shows photographs of Mr Obama, the German Nazi leader and Russian communist with the statement: "Radical leaders prey on the fearful & naive."

The words "Democratic Socialism" are featured over Mr Obama's picture, over Hitler's photo is "National Socialism" and over Lenin's head is "Marxist Socialism." The word "Change" – Mr Obama's campaign slogan – is included on each photo.

North Iowa Tea Party co-founder Bob Johnson said the sign highlighted what the group argues is Mr Obama's support for socialism.

Placards with similar messages have been discouraged from tea party events after drawing negative publicity. Pictures of the president daubed with a Hitler moustache were commonly seen during the early days of the movement in protest at his health care reform.

Shelby Blakely, a spokesman for the national Tea Party Patriots, said the sign was not appropriate. She said her group opposed any such comparisons.

John White, state coordinator of the Iowa Tea Party movement, said such signs were distasteful. But he told Radio Iowa that he believed that everything Mr Obama had done was in "lock-step" with what Hitler did in his day.

The White House declined to comment.

link

The sign is obnoxious and stupid, imo. But not racist. And there obnoxious and stupid people everywhere, even in the NAACP

DavidZahir · Jul 14, 2010

So--the NAACP is supposed to stay silent at a vocal and obvious thread of racism in a major political movement? Is that what you're saying? 'Cause that is what I'm getting.

clintl · Jul 14, 2010

Don said:
I also condemn the concept of collective guilt. Heaped on anybody. At any time.

When a bunch of people form a group, and the group commits despicable acts, then it's entirely appropriate to condemn the group collectively.

Diana Hignutt · Jul 14, 2010

clintl said:
When a bunch of people form a group, and the group commits despicable acts, then it's entirely appropriate to condemn the group collectively.

What despicable act has the Tea party collectively done again?

robeiae · Jul 14, 2010

Opposed the admin and other incumbents?

DavidZahir · Jul 14, 2010

Well, there is that billboard. And spitting on a black Congressmen while calling others "Nigger." The racist signs there are in abundance at every Tea Party rally I've ever seen.

What puzzles me is that since so many white people complain about racism directed against them, why do they so object when black people make the same complaint? When did it become somehow wrong for a minority to point out--and condemn--racism?

When are African Americans allowed to complain about racism? As far as I can tell from some people, the answer is--Never.

Don · Jul 14, 2010

clintl said:
When a bunch of people form a group, and the group commits despicable acts, then it's entirely appropriate to condemn the group collectively.

So when a bunch of people form a group to watch a socker game, then some of those people riot at a soccer game, and somebody dies, all the spectators are guilty of murder?

Not in my universe.

DavidZahir · Jul 14, 2010

If it happens over and over again, are we supposed to ignore the trend? And are we supposed to let the killers in the first instance go scott free lest we insult peace-loving soccer players?

Really, why aren't the targets of prejudice supposed to complain about it?

robeiae · Jul 14, 2010

DavidZahir said:
Well, there is that billboard.

Which is--again--not racist.

And spitting on a black Congressmen while calling others "Nigger."

Which were not the actions of an organized group, but of assholes among a barely organized group.

The racist signs there are in abundance at every Tea Party rally I've ever seen.

There have been a lot... signs and rallies.

What puzzles me is that since so many white people complain about racism directed against them, why do they so object when black people make the same complaint? When did it become somehow wrong for a minority to point out--and condemn--racism?

I have no problem with complaints about racism, when it's demonstrable. Certainly, the cretins with the racist signs are evidence par excellence of their racism.

But again--as is so often noted in these tea party threads--there is no "Tea Party." It's a movement, not an organization.

When are African Americans allowed to complain about racism? As far as I can tell from some people, the answer is--Never.

Which people? Specify.

Zoombie · Jul 14, 2010

If someone is being racist, you have an obligation to the human race to speak out against it. If you don't, then you're at best being lazy and at worst abetting the spread of a vile ideology via not doing something.

Inaction can be just as bad as action, ya know.

clintl · Jul 14, 2010

Diana Hignutt said:
What despicable act has the Tea party collectively done again?

I was talking generally, in response to Don's comment that assigning collective guilt is always wrong.

However, if want a specific example concerning the Tea Party, that billboard that the Iowa Tea Party posted isn't very nice.

NAACP condemns racist elements in Tea Party

No Gods No Masters

poet

Prodigiously Hanged

All Living is Local

No Gods No Masters

No Gods No Masters

All Living is Local

Moderator In Name Only

No Gods No Masters

All Living is Local

No Gods No Masters

All Living is Local

Human Torpedo

Moderator In Name Only

Touch and go

Malkavian Primogen

Represent.

Very Tired

Touch and go

Malkavian Primogen

All Living is Local

Malkavian Primogen

Touch and go

Dragon of the Multiverse

Represent.