UPDATE:
Timothy Dalrymple has the 3rd part of his series on this question posted here.
***********************
In the most mealy-mouthed sort of unattributed criticism, the Christian science monitor tells us about the upcoming NAACP resolution on alleged tea party racism
The tea party movement has been criticized before for allegedly harboring racist attitudes toward President Obama. Now the NAACP is set to vote on a resolution condemning supporters of the tea party for displaying “signs and posters intended to degrade people of color generally and President Barack Obama specifically.” It calls “the racist elements” within the movement “a threat to progress.”
This kind of “passive voice” language (“has been criticized”) is really just passive aggressive. Who, exactly, has criticized the tea party movement for “racism”? Well… Democratic activists, radicals and politicians with an axe to grind, from the congressional black caucus. What evidence have they been able to bring to light?
Absolutely none.
There is no film, no audio, no photography, showing racist commentary or alleged actions like those debunked here.
I have come to the conclusion that when liberals, progressives and/or socialists call conservatives or libertarians racist, merely because they are conservatives or libertarians, it is the moral equivalent of the name callers holding their fingers in their ears and crying, “I’m not gonna listen! I’m not gonna listen!” In other words, it’s childish, intellectually bankrupt, and like some children can be, more than a little vicious.
Calling someone a racist, without evidence, merely because you don’t like their positions on the issues, is the last refuge of rhetorical scoundrels. When you hear the charge leveled, without evidence, you know all you need to know about the name-caller.
The word “racist” should never be used without explicit, specific evidence in hand, publicly available.
July 15th, 2010 8:48 am
“Intellectually bankrupt”? Democrats? Surely you jest (pun intended)!
July 15th, 2010 6:10 pm
Does word “colored” qualify? Mark Williams sure likes to use such terms.
July 15th, 2010 10:19 pm
I see that the post I’ve planned for the near future is indeed necessary. It will be on the topic “Who is a racist?”
For now, let me just say this: “minorities” like to use the phrase “people of color.” Not very long ago, the word “colored” was in common use, and had no pejorative aspect.
I note that the NAACP has not changed its name. Presumably, if they were touchy about it, they would.
Not that failing to humor someone else’s touchiness is prima facie evidence of racism.
July 16th, 2010 12:31 am
This racism gag is getting old. To quote Monty Python: “Snap snap, grin grin, wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more, say no more.” That sketch illustrated that the ridiculousness of any claim of offensiveness of anything anyone says is directly proportionate to the creepiness of the interpreter. I just looked across the room and saw a door knob. Am I insinuating something, ay? he asked him knowingly?
July 16th, 2010 4:37 pm
“…allegedly harboring racist attitudes toward President Obama”
I’m sorry, maybe I missed something, is incompetent a race?
July 17th, 2010 12:31 pm
When all else fails, play the race card. It’s the all encompassing panacea for objectionable behavior, at least in this country. According to Jesse Jackson, the current owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers has a “slave owner” mentality, because he lashed out at Le Bron’s decision to go to Miami. It has to be racism, right? Sorry about the sports tangent, but I find this strangely relevant.
July 17th, 2010 1:44 pm
Charges of racism now occur almost as often as Paris Hilton lights up a joint. And the accusations are often rather preposterous, (e.g. Jesse Jackson’s latest silliness).
The net effect is that the term “racist” no longer has any real meaning.