Red Nemesis
The Blind Critic
Originally posted by truejedi
Let me get this straight: You are saying because George W. Bush is white, the words "take our country back" cannot be construed as Racism, but because Obama is black, the words "take our country back" CAN be construed as racism?Did you really just do that? You just treated the statements differently based SOLELY on the color of the skin of the man involved? Unless I am missing something, that is the ONLY difference in the two situations.
That isn't what I did at all and you know it. I don't know if you've decided that this is the big stand against the pinko-commie-librul-satanist-babymurdering fascist or what, but this is
not the issue that you want to pick. You do not want to pick this position because your position is
untenableI mean stupid.
There are certain differences in the positions of Howard Dean and the TeaBagger movement. There are also differences in the circumstances under which the line "take back the country" was said, and what was meant by it. You know all of this. If you want to consider all statements equal regardless of speaker then I dare you to walk up to the nearest black person and greet them with a hearty "Yo niggah!" You will be soundly demolished (by passers by as well as your target) and yet it is possible that less than a mile away the same exchange occurs without a drop of blood shed. The difference? In the peaceful interaction both participants were black.
This shows how the same line in different contexts may mean different things. Why don't we look at the specific context of the Howard Dean remark.
Wiki
Howard Brush Dean III (born November 17, 1948) is an American politician and physician from the U.S. state of Vermont. He served six terms as the 79th Governor of Vermont and ran unsuccessfully for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination. He was chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 2005 to 2009.
That is the Wiki's first paragraph about Howard dean. There are a lot of paragraphs about him later on the page, but this one will be enough. Do you see what the second independent clause of the second sentence says? That he ran for President of the United States of America. Specifically, he ran for the opportunity to run for President of the United States of America. When one runs for President, one must energize one's "base." This means that the people that would vote for you must be convinced to vote for you.
Howard Dean was speaking to a base of voters, who are tasked with this very task: voting into office those candidates who are most capable of representing one's interests. To that end political parties have been formed, essentially allowing voters the advantage of collective bargaining.
Howard Dean was telling voters that they would best be served by voting for him, partially by drawing a contrast to the elected administration that he would be running against. His words advocate a legitimate, lawful transfer of power through official channels based on authentic, intellectually honest policy differences.
Does the Tea Bagger movement have the same credibility?
Spoiler:
No
Luckily for me, I do not have to cobble together a case for or against their degree of egalitarianism, because I have yet to endorse a position regarding their racism or lack thereof.
I just have to make TJ understand that a phrase can mean different things depending on how (or by whom) it is said. To this end I have endeavored to explain to him why this statement is not racist in the least. I have explained that the motivations behind Mr. Dean's statements were not motivated by race even a little.
It is my intention now to ask TJ a question:
Why is it that you feel that Mr. Dean's statements are racist? What makes you think that he is treating his opponent, former President Bush, differently or unfairly based on his (Bush's) race?