Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
|
I remember that. I mentioned in another post that there could be a large number of non-members who find this site by accident while browsing a topic with their search engine. And that's how I did. Buzztwang apparently did also. I forget how I knew of his bit on me, whether his original post was posted here, or if I accidentally found it on the web. I was not, am not, a member of his site. Nor have I posted anything else there. I am not a "full time troll." If accidently finding his remarks makes me one, then I guess you are as well.
So I replied in his comment section. BTW, did you read my reply to him in the comments? It's the first one under Danny. It pretty effectively demolished his rant on me. I checked back a few times to see if he replied. But he never did. Don't think he could have made a convincing rebuttle. In case you missed it, here it is:
Hi Buzz Twang. I’m Detbuch. Everyone on the fishing forum uses what you refer to as an “anonymous moniker.” It’s not an underhanded attempt to hide. It’s just the convention of the forum. Sorry if I came off as an uncompassionate racist “teabagger” in the bit that you discovered in trackback to the forum. I am not a member of the Tea Party, and I don’t have compassion for any race.
The “straw man argument” you refer to was a response to “Zimmy” (his anonymous moniker)–another member of the forum who claimed that he knew “at least 12 people who are active w/tea party rallies” who are all unashamedly bigoted, specifically pointing to one who “does not hide his feelings . . . in private” and is the reason “many of us would never associate with the Tea Party” even though they don’t represent everyone in the party.
My response to him was not “apologizing for racism via the ‘we’re all racists’ approach” as you put it–nowhere did I defend, approve of, or apologize for racism in that response. If you had included the comment by Zimmy, it would be clear that I was responding to his reason why “many of us would never associate with the Tea Party.” In view of Zimmy’s remarks, it should be evident that I was making parallel comparisons to the blacks that I know who are overtly racist in “private situations,” or the “great Americans” who were racists pointing out the silliness of Zimmy’s reason why “many of us would never associate with the Tea Party .
So it doesn’t “miss the point entirely” as you put it. It is directly on point to Zimmy’s anecdotal account of why we, or he, or they, would never associate with the Tea Party. Nor do I find that it is “difficult for the Tea Party faithful to simply admit . . . they do have racists among them.” As you say, “every party does”. Which is what I was pointing out to Zimmy, and why it would be ridiculous to not associate with a party because it had racists.
As for my observation that all but one of your photos are other than racist in theme, and your claim that each sign “has a unique view that is blatantly racist, and I gloss over it with the nonchalance of one completely desensitized to racist jargon and imagery”, here is my thinking.
Sign #1: You claim that I glossed the blatant racism and claimed that it referred to religion not racism. The text is “Obama my forefathers were Christian yours were from Kenya that explains a lot about you.” You say that I miss the “obvious ” racism which is “implied.” Implications are a level removed from actuality. If racism is implied, it is not obvious. Many things can be implied by the sign. There are a lot of reasons why a “good” Christian might see being Kenyan is a threat. Most of the reasons are ignorant or exaggerated. The implication which I see in the sign is the silly idea that Obama is a Muslim because his Kenyan Father was. That is why I see this as referring to religion not race. I don’t see a racist “imagery” or racist “jargon” to which I’m desensitized in the sign. Perhaps, you’re glossing over it with the nonchalance of one who is over-sensitized to racist jargon and imagery so that you see it “implied” in something that doesn’t speak of race.
Sign #2: which I said reversed the slavery cliche did exactly that. It “obviously” points out very crudely that Obama’s reign, rather than a kumbaya get along is regarded by the carrier as slavery. He/she even sees the irony of a black man being the slave master. It is unavoidable to harken to American slavery without “racist loaded imagery,” but to point out the irony of a black man adhering to slavery-like big government power over individuals, which is a Tea Party theme, is not racism. Of course, if you want it to be, then you can gloss into that mode.
Sign #3: compared Obamacare to voodoo. The picture clearly refers to Obamacare and relates it to a lower standard of health care exaggerated by depicting Obama as a witch doctor. If showing pictures of witch doctors is racist, than let’s ban pictures of witch doctors. If comparing a “health plan” to voodoo practice is racist, then let us never again compare anything to voodoo or witch doctors (unless they are shown to be superior, of course.) So are we to enter an era of racial thought control. Politics is usually practiced crudely. Insults are common, exaggeration and lies are as well. Why must we find racism “implied” if it is not overtly expressed. We demean that which is perceived to be lesser. Witch doctors are a political shorthand term to refer to lesser health care. Do you think blacks don’t make fun of witch doctors or bones in the nose or primitivism? I don’t know, by the way, what your phrase “essential compassion for blacks” is other than a superior attitude toward an entire race–which is the actual definition of racism.
Sign #4: does emphasize the Islamic stuff (Hussein), and the go back to Kenya is “obviously” a stupid concern of many that he is not qualified to be POTUS because his citizenship is, in their mind, Kenyon (you’d think you’d brush up on this stuff and not always see “implied” racism rather than “blatant” stupidity that rampages in the news.) You gloss a bit here as well by saying that telling people to go back to their native land “is a long time cry of Nativists and racists.” So which is it, nativism or racism? It could in no way refer to the controversy of his birth certificate and his right to be POTUS? You also gloss absolutely by ignoring the “dixie chickin” our nation part of the sign. Hard to impute racism to that, so skip it.
Sign #5: I supposedly missed the “racism of the back to Kenya part. You think that “odd.” And that maybe I didn’t read it all. Yeah, I did. Didn’t miss a thing. You say I probably focused on the cap and trade part but not the actual “racist” part. I have explained that back to Kenya for most Tea Partiers refers to the citizenship controversy. Does it evoke a hidden “implied” racism for some Tea Partiers (and non-tea partiers for that matter)–sure, as we both have said: there are racists in all parties. Perhaps you focused on your agenda to find racism “implied” in this sign and didn’t focus on the cap and trade part and the play on the word trade.
That Tea Partiers originally used Tea Baggers before they knew it had another meaning (most Americans were not aware of this other meaning) is no reason to rub salt in the wound. Call people what they wish to be called: Afro-American, Black, People of Color, but not NEGRO. That is now derogatory. It is apparently an insult to say homo-sexual rather than gay. But Tea Bagger is fair game? You used Tea Party and Tea Bagger and nonchalantly claim the latter is not an insult. Is it an insult to use the “N” word if you are not Black? By the way, your characterization that the Tea Bagger was stolen rather than invented would imply that Tea Partiers knew of the double meaning and stole it. Perhaps you are so into the implication mode that you don’t know you’re doing it in a silly way.
Where do you get that its “a historical fact that the modern Tea party are the philosophical and political heir to the Know Nothing party of the 1800s.” That’s a sweeping statement with no analysis of actual Tea Party concerns. Were Know Nothings concerned with national health care plans and the national debt? Are the Tea Party doctrines secret? Do Tea Partiers reply “I don’t know” when asked questions about the party, or are they more than glad to expound what they are about? Are they anti-Catholic? Concerning racism, wasn’t much of the northern faction of the Know Nothings anti-slavery (so strange to emphasize racism in the Tea Party then compare it to Know Nothings)? Are Tea Partiers predominantly anti-immigration as were the Know Nothings, or are they against illegal immigration as are most Americans? Does the Tea Party want repeal of the naturalization laws?
I ran across your post accidentally–was surprised it filtered out into web-space. Amazing world we live in. I can see how you can read racism into the signs, or just about anything else in our social and political sphere. Doesn’t mean that what you see is what was intended. I prefer to stick to what is provable, “obvious” rather than what I might consider to be implied.