Once again, calling out racism is greeted with more outrage than the racism itself

[Empowerer]

Wouldn't it be nice if those who are screaming and whining and threatening to hold their breaths until they turn blue because the NAACP has the NOIVE to call on the Tea Party to repudiate the racist elements in its midst could muster even one-tenth of this passion to address racism itself?

[ZombieHorde]

1. Sounds logical, recommended. nt

[jonestonesusa]

2. It would be nice.

But it probably won't happen. Denial of the impact of racism is a common state of mind even here on DU.

[AspenRose]

10. It's easier to be offended by the idea of being accused of racism

than to give the accusation some thought and see if it honestly has merit.

The problem lies in the qualifications people (usually in the majority) use to see if those accusations are "really racist." And for many, if it doesn't demonstrate outward racism (read: no dog whistles) then it's not really racist.

Then they can go back to feeling better about themselves once they've gotten over being offended, duly ignoring future pleas of racism that don't fit the "criteria."

[ladjf]

3. I believe that the driving force of the Tea Party emotion is racism.

But, in order for them to gain political power in America, that racism must be masked by numerous complaints about how the Federal Government has taken "their" County away from them.

Underlying their basic malaise is their realization that the racial demographics in the U.S. point toward a significant Black , Hispanic and Oriental voting majority. The White Tea Baggers are desperate to head of that inevitable day by any means possible.

[livetohike]

4. Going back to 2008 and some of the e-mails I received

racism is alive and well and prominent in the Tea Party. Which talking head will be the first to show the footage of the signs and then interview some GOP analyst and ask WTF they think that means? I haven't seen anyone do it yet.

[Lilyeye]

5. Yup@the title

[bigmonkey]

6. The Tea Party folks interpret being "aware of race" as racism, IMO.

My guess is that they think that "being against racism" means suppressing all mention of race, because that's how they experience it in their own minds. They see themselves as being forbidden to mention their "natural" racist thoughts, and so they see it as "only fair" that everyone else also be forbidden to mention race, or to refer to differences between groups based on attitudes toward race. They basically don't understand what racism is.

I feel racist acts need to be called out, and explicit racism on the part of anyone in authority should be confronted, not tolerated. Unfortunately, racism also has an "unconscious" component, which would be better brought out in the open and forgiven if the person is remorseful about attitudes they've uncovered or discovered about themselves. How do you reconcile these two?

[Empowerer]

8. You're right - and the suppression of any recognition of race maintains their advantage

since in our society, white culture, attitude, etc. is the "default.". For example, hardly anyone bats an eye at a virtually all-white network, or Senate or Supreme Court, etc. But when someone suggests diversifying all- or nearly all-white institutions, they're accused of stirring up racial divisions and demanding a lowering of standards - revealing an interesting mindset that assumes whites are automatically qualified to be wherever they are. An over-representation of whites in any endeavor is simply proof that those whites are more qualified and deserve to be there. On the other hand, any attempt to provide African Americans a fair shot is automatically suspect - not only does it assume that blacks are less deserving, it means that whites are having something taken away from them.

But if we don't talk about it, if we don't rock the boat, everything stays the way it is, which means white folks maintain their long-held advantage.

[bigmonkey]

13. So, how to challenge this?

We need to talk about it. Accepting their "adaptation" (which has also been adopted by the media) is clearly counter-productive.

One allied issue is the idea that fairness requires never disadvantaging deliberately anyone who's currently advantaged. After all, everyone should have that (relatively scarce) advantage in the abstract. The upshot is, messing with the status quo is shouted down as unfair.

Perhaps this is one reason why disasters enable realignments of social structures. The advantages are suddenly taken away from everybody, and the question shifts to "why restore them for only a few".

[angee_is_mad]

7. Kick

and recommend.

[JNelson6563]

9. Typical narcissist behavior.

Deflect blame/deny accusation and do it at the top of your lungs.

Julie

[Empowerer]

12. Exactly! And pushing back this way ensures they'll never have to address the underlying problem n/t

[Fire1]

11. Kicked. n/t

[niceypoo]

14. Look at who is doing the crying

Some real mental firepower going on over at the tea party express.

[jenmito]

15. Today on MSNBC, some teabag leader said ALL the racist signs, including the one of Obama portrayed

as a witch doctor with a bone through his nose, were made and held by people who CRASHED the rallies, repeatedly telling Tamron Hall to go to some crashtheteaparty website which would prove he's right.

Yeah-I remember all the teabaggers giving all the "crashers" who held up those signs lots of condemnation and trouble as shown here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x373352 . :eyes: