jimboston wrote: PLAYER57832 wrote:
Sorry, but I know a few too many racist Tea Partiers to let this slide. You went to 2 tea party rallies in Boston and consider that "representative?"
I don't think I said it was "representative". Please don't put words in my mouth.
Your statement was "have any of you been to a tea party movement".... "I have been to 2". Sorry, but that is pretty much what you said.
jimboston wrote:
That said... I believe it is representative of the Tea Party in New England. I know of only a handful of rallies that have occured in Greater Boston... and a few more in NH and RI. So... yes... for New England this would be a representative sample.
Sorry, but no. And, you may only know of those few, but there have been a good many more, in NY, in PA, Maryland, etc.
jimboston wrote: PLAYER57832 wrote:
They ARE there and if you deny that... then that is rather sweeping it under a rug.
Nope.. they were not.
And you know this how? Did you bother to talk to them all? Did you engage them in questions that would tell you if they were racist or not? You can certainly argue that there were not people carrying racist signs and shouting racist comments. That might just mean they "have manners".
Even so, it could be that the 2 rallies you went to were somehow void of the racist elements that very much have been a part of not just every rally I have seen, but have heard about (from other people of various political persuasions who went), going to 2 rallies is no where near enough justification for you to come out with the blatent statement that racism is not a part of the Tea Party, because you have been to rallies and not seen it.
I say there are and were racists there because I know this for a fact, having talked to people/knowing people involved.
jimboston wrote: PLAYER57832 wrote:
(it might be they were there, but not carrying "hate people of color" signs)
That's the whole point... no? I mean
I didn't say "I looked into the hearts of the thousands in attenance and saw no racist sentiments." I said that I saw no signs... no overt displays of racism. I see more racism on a regular basis... at my barber... out at a bar... etc... than I saw at these two events.
Yes... and no. Not everyone in the south was part of a lynch mob, but far many more were and are quite complicent in the racism. That is the real point. If the real and true motives of many people within the movement are racist, then the results of their actions, need to be examed much more harshly for hints of racism.
Also, when it comes to something like the Tea Party, we are talking about asking for huge changes in our government and the power structure. It doesn't take people who are intentionally and vocally racist on the outside to force through decisions that are extremely detrimental, that effectively promote racism. All it takes is for people not to look to closely at what the results of their decisions will be.
jimboston wrote:
BTW... at the first event I wasn't "looking" for signs (overt or otherwise)... because in my mind I never associated the Tea Party with racism. At the second event, on the Boston Common, I was specifically on the lookout for racist signage or chants or whatever... as I had read (here mainly) that the Tea Party was a bunch of racists. I wanted to determine for myself what was happening.
Again, Boston is in many ways less overtly racist than other areas (it absolutely exists, but tends to meld more into "classism" or a kind of "other elitism" (my ggggg... grandfather came over on the Mayflower and yours didn't! We have been a part of "
real Boston society" for
generations, not like these
new money types. .. though I have to say that some of those elements work hard to be non-racist nowadays.)
jimboston wrote: PLAYER57832 wrote:
As long as the party disassociates itself from the racist elements, then ... a few hangers on are just that, "hangers on". However, the tea party has been rather slow to reject racists associates. You can say this is because the group is just loose, as a whole, not really a true "group" yet, just a conglomeration of different people wanting lower taxes OR you can say it is because there are a lot of racist elements within the party. It has been an open question as to which is true.
This is true in part. Though I have some objections, as this mentality is typical of Liberals and the Liberal Media.
"liberal media".. Oh, you mean "Democracy Now" and "Alternative Radio" ? I did not know you were even aware of those programs. They hardly represent a large portion of the media, at any rate.
As for "typical of Liberals"...not even sure where that comment is heading. I don't think you really have a true clue about what liberals actually represent or the so-called "liberal movement" has pushed for or accomplished. It seems you just equate being "liberal" with anything you oppose. (except, perhaps, countering racism and a couple of other big topics, all pretty mainstream now).
jimboston wrote:
I have heard many pundits, and much talk about the believe that "all" or "most" of the objections to Obama and the Obama adgenda are based on racism and/or racist motives. No doubt that some of the people who dislike Obama and resist his adgenda are racist. It is not accurate however that that "all" or "most" of these people (who resist his adgenda) are racist.
Some do say this, but the funny part is that thinking is mostly repeated by conservative pundits and commentaries. As in "now, I know that the liberals just want to claim we object to Obama because of
racism, but the truth is.....". Mostly, liberals see this as much more of a pwer structure/class and economic battle, with some conservatives conveniently using racism in a "back-handed" (oh, no, I am definitely not racist... see how many black friends I have...and
they fully agree that all these unemployed blacks are just lazy...)
jimboston wrote:
As a non-racist person who dislikes Obama and his adgenda, I take exception to the idea that I am "likely" racist because my political views disagree with his. I also do not believe that it is my job to "prove" that I am not racist. That is stupid.
Well, I cannot say if you are or are not racist. It's just not possible to prove. I cannot say that I have seen posts showing you are. I have certainly never said anything like "you are just opposed to Obama because he is black". I believe you are opposed to Obama because you listen exclusively or almost exclusively to incredibly conservative and right wing sources. I say that because the information and knowledge you put forward makes that evident. Your repeated references to this or that idea "being liberal", etc. show you really have little understanding of liberalism or even much of other political positions. You just don't right now. (hope that changes).
jimboston wrote:
The idea that the "Tea Party" (which is not officially organized like true political parties) must prove it isn't racist is akin to me (as an individual) having to do the same.
No, it isn't. A group is only known by its public voice and actions. ("public", in this case meaning internal meetings as well as things designed for non-members to see). They cannot prove that every member is non-racist, no. However, they very much can prove, through actions, if the organization itself tolerates or works to exclude racism.
jimboston wrote: PLAYER57832 wrote:
That they ousted this leader is definitely a good sign. I hope they continue to dissassociate themselves from racism, not because I particularly care about the tea party itself, but because racism still has such virulant potential to spin just about anything out of control. We don't need more hatred in politics.. Period! Disagreement over ideas is one thing.. you can debate, discuss, come to a compromise or a consensus.
I agree. As far as there is an organization call "the Tea Party"... yes, they should take measures to keep their house clean. That said... I would guess that only a small (very small) fraction of the people that have attended rallies, and/or those (like myself) who consider themselves sympathetic to the Tea Party, are even official members. I have never attended a meeting, never paid dues, etc.
This is the ONLY reason why the "Tea Party" might be somewhat excused from taking action against these folks in the past. However, the group is more and more moving to a unified banner. When you have more than a few rallies and press conferences say "the Tea Party wants..." or "demands", etc... then dues or no dues, it IS an organization.
jimboston wrote:
The main point here is that... although there may be some bad apples in the formal organization... the vast bulk of people who have been at rallies ARE NOT racist... and the Media painting the "party" as such, spills onto these people.
Oh, I am QUITE sure that many, many people associated with the Tea Party are not racist (at least intentionally so), and that more might be racist, but don't show it in any way at the rallies. The question about the party itself has more to do with leadership and responses to those who are racist within the movement. It doesn't really matter if only a "few" racists are a part, if the organization stands by and just lets them "do their racist thing", without condemnation, then
the party IS responsible, regardless of what the rest of the "membership" thinks.
jimboston wrote: PLAYER57832 wrote:
Hatred.. is utterly illogical and winds up destroying all.
Hatred for someone based on race... I agree... illogical and immoral. If one hates ninja's though that is quite reasonable.
lol... but my 9 year old seems to think Ninjas are pretty cool.
