What if American blacks don’t want to join the club?

“I sent the club a wire stating, ‘PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON’T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBER.'” — Groucho Marx, quoting a telegram he sent to the Friar’s Club of Beverly Hills, as recounted in Groucho and Me (1959), p. 321.

The Democratic Establishment is having a hard time playing “the Tea Parties are a violent organization” card because, to the Left’s chagrin, the Tea Parties aren’t violent at all.  In stark contrast to the Bush era protests (or any Leftist protests), with their violent words and imagery, the mountains of trash left behind, the confrontations with police, and the random vandalism that followed in the protests’ wakes, the Tea Parties have been uniformly characterized by shiny, happy people who just happen to have gathered to laud the Constitution and America’s fundamental freedoms.  These aren’t Clockwork Orange protests; instead, they’re straight out of the Leave it to Beaver playbook.

But the violence claim was always the second arrow in the quiver, not the first.  The first was, is now, and will continue to be, racism.  Because the Tea Party protests are aimed against policies espoused by a black president, the Democratic operatives claim that the protests are, by definition, racist.

This makes sense if you’re a Progressive whose world view is inextricably bound up with identity politics.  To me, Obama can be defined myriad ways:  he’s a man who was raised in a Communist milieu, he’s a former drug user, he’s someone whose hostility to Israel and Jews neatly shades into antisemitism, he’s a product of the most liberal faction of the Ivy League schools, he’s a lousy constitutional lawyer, he’s an avid supporter of Euro style (or, maybe, even Chavez/Castro style) Big Government, he’s a very angry person, and — oh, yes — he’s black.

To someone in thrall to identity politics, though, I’ve got it all bass ackwards.  Obama’s skin color isn’t one factor amongst many.  It is, instead, his single defining factor.  Everything else is a mere subset of his blackness.  Because he is black, he was raised with Communists, used drugs, hates Jews and Israel, fell in with Leftists at his Ivy League schools, understands that the constitution is a fraud, loves Big Government, and is angry.

Because the Progressive world view demands that Obama can only be the sum total of his race, anyone opposing the bits and pieces lurking under his skin color must inevitably be opposing, not the bits and pieces, but the color.  Therefore, such opposition is, by definition, racist.  Q.E.D.

Of course, the above is a subtle argument, logical to those steeped in the arcane race theories of the far Left, but a little bit challenging to explain to people who prefer watching American Idol over reading Noam Chomsky.  So, if you’re a Progressive charged with making a convincing argument to a primitive television audience, logic requires that you go for a visual.  That should convince the rubes sacked out on their sofas.  And the perfect visual is the absence of black faces at the various Tea Parties.  It must be because of racism, right?

Charles Blow, a black writer, provides a perfect example of this simplistic line of argument:

On Thursday, I came here outside Dallas for a Tea Party rally.


I had specifically come to this rally because it was supposed to be especially diverse. And, on the stage at least, it was. The speakers included a black doctor who bashed Democrats for crying racism, a Hispanic immigrant who said that she had never received a single government entitlement and a Vietnamese immigrant who said that the Tea Party leader was God. It felt like a bizarre spoof of a 1980s Benetton ad.

The juxtaposition was striking: an abundance of diversity on the stage and a dearth of it in the crowd, with the exception of a few minorities like the young black man who carried a sign that read “Quit calling me a racist.”


I found the imagery surreal and a bit sad: the minorities trying desperately to prove that they were “one of the good ones”; the organizers trying desperately to resolve any racial guilt among the crowd. The message was clear: How could we be intolerant if these multicolored faces feel the same way we do?

Blow reserves special venom for Alfonzo “Zo” Rachel, who needs no introduction here.  I’ve link to him many times here, ever since I first saw his martial arts/political discussion video.  You and I may see Zo as an independent thinker, who took his life experience and applied it to the political scene, but Blow views Zo as a half ignorant Uncle Tom, half minstrel show:

They saved the best for last, however: Alfonzo “Zo” Rachel. According to his Web site, Zo, who is black and performs skits as “Zo-bama,” allowed drugs to cost him “his graduation.” Before ripping into the president for unconstitutional behavior, he cautioned, “I don’t have the education that our president has, so if I misinterpret some things in the founding documents I kind of have an excuse.” That was the understatement of the evening.

Zo, understandably, has a few things to say on his own behalf in the face of this attack.  I’ll only add that, considering that Blow works for the whiter-than-white New York Times, one has to ask who’s the real token black.  But that’s a discussion for another day, and one best held after Blow has spent some time asking himself why he’s carrying water for a corporation that refuses him, and those like him, access to its highest ranks.

These attacks against whites for racism based on nothing more than pale visuals doesn’t end with political protests.  The whole “no blacks at the party equals racism” approach has invaded the sports world too:

A Boston sports radio host on Friday called Heisman Trophy-winning football star Tim Tebow’s “lily white” NFL draft party a “Nazi rally.”

For those unfamiliar, 98.5 FM “The Sports Hub” in Boston is home to the NFL’s Patriots and the NHL’s Bruins.

The morning drive-time program between 6 and 10 AM is called “Toucher and Rich” as it’s hosted by Fred “Toucher” Toettcher and Rich Shertenlieb.

According to the Boston Herald, Toucher on Friday stuck his foot in his mouth BIG TIME.


Fred “Toucher” Toettcher said yesterday on 98.5 The Sports Hub, “It looked like some kind of Nazi rally. . . . So lily-white is what I’m trying to say. Yeah, Stepford Wives.”

Toettcher clearly believes that, if Tebow doesn’t have minorities at his party, it’s because he is a hate-filled, racist, who would cheerfully consign anyone who is neither lily-white nor Christian to the gas chambers.  Right?  That must be what he meant when he compared a draft party to a Nazi gathering.

It doesn’t seem to occur to any of these race baiters that the absence of blacks may have nothing to do with the whites, and everything to do with the blacks.  Story after story about the Tea Party, even those stories written by people oozing hostility and defensiveness, shows that the white Tea Partiers are welcoming to all comers (except for infiltrators, of course).  Nor is there any credible evidence of racism at these events.  (And no, shouting “Kill the Bill” is not the same thing as “Kill the Black person,” no matter how much you wish it was.)

The Tea Partiers are bound together by their love for America, not their hatred for “the other.”  The Tea Parties are part of a constitutionally based movement that embraces all Americans regardless of race, color, creed, sex, sexually orientation, or country of origin.  For example, please check out the Mount Vernon Statement, as a perfect example as one can find of the pure American ideology that animates Tea Partiers.

Why, then, if Tea Partiers have a neutral political ideology and welcome all comers are black people conspicuously absent?  There is, of course, the obvious fact that blacks, who are a relatively small percent of the American population, will therefore be a small percent of the Tea Party attendees.  (For more information on black attendance, this is helpful.)  That’s just a numbers thing, though.  The deeper answer may be that American blacks have been encouraged to love their party more than they love their country.

For generations, blacks have been raised to see America, not as a land of opportunity, but as a land of white racial hatred, a land of slavery, and a land which made its fortune with the blood of blacks.  (Thinking about it, it’s a bizarre inversion of the Rogers and Hammerstein song, “You’ve got to be carefully taught.”)  For American blacks, salvation lies in the arms of the Democrats, their only safe haven in a dangerous land.  What’s sad is that this stark Leftist view of history destroys all the nuances that would allow American blacks to approach politics by examining the practical realities of their lives, both at the micro level (their own homes and communities) and the macro level (American politics and national security).

How do you tell people who put their hands over their ears and say “I’m not listening” that, yes, America was complicit in the slave trade, but that she couldn’t have been if it wasn’t for the fact the slaves’ fellow Africans were equally complicit.  (And kudos to Henry Louis Gates for finally acknowledging what every honest historian has always known, a shout out he deserves despite his clinging to the reparations idea.)

How do you explain that, in terms of sheer numbers, America was one of the nations least complicit in the slave trade? That doesn’t remove the stain, of course, but it does make one wonder why the U.S. is singled out for the greatest opprobrium.

How do you explain that America’s wealth was not built on the slavery, which was, in fact, a singularly unprofitable way to run a business, and one that was barely self-sustaining?  Again, that doesn’t remove the stain, but it does rebut the canard that America’s pre-recession, pre-trillion dollar debt wealth was founded on an institution that ended almost 150 years ago.

One also has to ask — doesn’t America get some credit for the fact that she engaged in a savage civil war, with hundreds of thousands of deaths, in significant part to end this ancient institution?

Lastly, shouldn’t American blacks know that, up until the late 1960s, it was the Democratic party that was the slavery, Jim Crow, racist party?  Republicans may historically have been the party of wealth and casual disdain for blacks, but they were never the party that was founded on and dedicated to racial hatred.  Yet is the Republicans who must bear the falsely appended “racist” label for all time.

My questions are obviously rhetorical.  As long as Democrats control the unions that control education, and as long as the black community is in thrall to the Democratic party, American blacks will not know these facts.

As is so often the case, history isn’t what actually happened, it’s what people believe happened.  The truth is irrelevant once the myth is firmly in place.  And the Democratic myth is one that has created a deep schism in America’s psyche.  In 40 plus years, despite Democratic and Progressive denial, the vast majority of white Americans have learned to treat blacks with the trust and equality that Martin Luther King envisioned when he said “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”  And in that same time, blacks have been taught to hate and distrust those same ordinary Americans.

And the end result, of course, is that few American blacks can contemplate joining the Tea Parties, a series of clubs nationwide that would happily have blacks as their members.  It’s not that the Tea Partiers don’t want the blacks; it’s that American blacks have been educated to the point in which it is impossible for them to contemplate joining the Tea Parties.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • swopuppy

    Fighting for individual freedoms and equalities through a just system that respects private property, does NOT care who/what you are. That is what makes it a JUST system. For the tea party to get off message in order to defend unfounded perceptions is a shame. The tea party doesn’t have to prove anything about it’s membership, it only has to read from their pocket constitutions and state how we as a society have strayed from the law of the land.  If WE as a people agree to that straying, then we need to modify the constitution in an amendment. 
    Lady Justice is portrayed blind for a reason.  As soon as we stray away from a just system, corruption will occur, and favoritisms of the week will be standard with each group demanding their ‘fair share’ of the pot.  When we are a free society with Gov’t’s only role being that of a just mediator, we prevent the stealing of others’ property for the pleasures of the vocal minority who guilt a majority into agreeing to their ‘fair share’ demands.  When we are all treated equally under a blind justice system with laws that apply to EVERYONE equally with zero exemptions, we flourish as a society and people as a whole.  Because when one subset is placed above another, it becomes a never ending cycle where a minority feels the right to demand their time in the sun.

  • TommyC

    A well considered post.
    Liberals tend to boil everything down to identity politics and (false) stereotypes.  When a conservative says anything that can be claimed as racist (remember such things a ‘community organizer’ and ‘tax cuts’ are now racist code words) then it, by definition, is racist.  Why?  Because we all know conservatives are racist.  When a liberal says something much more obviously  racist, we have to realize that they misspoke or were misinterpreted.  Why?  Because liberals, by definition, are not racist.   Liberals have a major self-interest in continuing to promote racism as a continuing problem in this country, so they naturally are inclined to put a racial spin on everything.   Racism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.


    It’s been nothing short of a chorus of whores singing out of tune.
    The Democrats’ need for victims and ‘racists’ has been there sheet music.  They’re hell bent on turning up the volume and why not – they’re already tone deaf from listening to the cacophony of their own voices.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    “it’s that American blacks have been educated to the point in which it is impossible for them to contemplate joining the Tea Parties.”
    They’re scared, shivering, wretches. Hiding in their houses, allowing Al Qaeda to use their home as a base, and too afraid to join the side of the US in kicking AQ out.
    Of course Democrats were against us liberating Iraqis. That shat scared the piss out of them when they had the idea that the same could happen with their black slaves.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    A counter-insurgency strategy would free blacks here in the US in no time. It would just mean doing much of what was done in Iraq, except here against the Left and in the same urban cities as Fallujah.

  • Spartacus

    Oh, I dunno… I kinda like the idea of reparations.  My ancestry comes mostly through the northern states, and one of the more genealogically-inclined members of the family informs me that over 100 men with our surname fought in The War… of whom, one was a Confederate.  I’m already thinking of ways to spend the money.  [wink]
    Seriously though, Gates has smelled the coffee in realizing that reparations would be hideously messy.  It would be political suicide to take up that banner on a serious basis, and Barack understands this perfectly well.  So the answer he gave, presumably to an audience sympathetic to reparations, is one more example of perhaps his most notable skill: talking out both sides of his mouth, and convincing all sides that he is on their side.

  • Gringo

    From the Gallup Poll: Tea Partiers Are Fairly Mainstream in Their Demographics
    Tea Party Supporters
    Non-Hispanic White 79 %
    Non-Hispanic Black 6%
    Other 15%
    All Americans
    Non-Hispanic White 75%
    Non-Hispanic Black 11%
    Other 15%
    From the 2008 election ( blacks made up 13% of the 2008 vote, 96% of  Blacks voted for Obama, McCain got 46% of vote), the math says that about 1% of the McCain vote came from Blacks . Yet according to the Gallup poll, 6% of Tea Party support comes from Blacks. Conclusion 1: the Tea Party movement  has had much more success in gaining black support than McCain did in 2008. Conclusion 2: as Black support of Obama is today around 96%, similar to the percentage that voted for Obama in 2008, there are blacks who both support Obama and support the Tea Parties.
    (Note: for those who dispute those precise figures for the 2008 election, neither Conclusion 1 nor  Conclusion 2 will be significantly altered with different  figures for the 2008 election. The NYT came up with significantly different figures for Tea Party support. IMHO, the Gallup Poll is more credible than the NYT for two reasons: it has much more polling experience and expertise than the NYT, and it is significantly less partisan than the NYT. This does not mean that an organization with a partisan point of view cannot come up with valid poll figures: it can. But when there is significant difference in results, choose the less partisan organization, all other things being equal.)

  • Gringo

    A further comment about Book’s “least complicit” Wiki link regarding percentages of  Africans sent as slaves to various New World destinations. When you compare the population of blacks today to those various regions, the conclusion is that  British North America ( US mostly) had significantly fewer deaths of slaves than other regions. For example,  British North America  had 6.45%  of  slave shipments to the New World. French Americas had 13.6 % of  slave shipments to the New World.  Off the top of my head, the black population in the US is about 35  million . One would expect the population of French Americas, such as Haiti, Martinique, French Guyana to then be around 70 million. Not so. Conclusion: death rate for black slaves in French Americas significantly  greater than in British North America. Conclusion: much poorly treated by the French than by the British.
    You don’t hear any mea culpas coming from the Frogs,do you?  Not to mention the debt France assigned to Haiti in the 19th century.

  • TommyC

    Warning warning!  This is tongue in cheek (but liberals probably would take me seriously).
    Compare the standard of living of blacks in America to those in Africa.  Maybe they are the ones who should be paying reparations.
    On a serious note, the slave economy was horribly inefficient.  Very bad for the slaves, but not very good for the southern economy, either.  Just compare the northern and southern economies.  To make the claim the America’s economic wealth was built on the backs of slaves is simply not correct.  Some, but very few, got rich on the backs of slaves.  But many stayed in poverty because of the overall backwardness of the economy.
    I’m a genealogy buff too.   My northern side includes a number that fought for the union, and my southern side includes not only some that fought for the confederacy, but some, horror of horrors, slave owners.  Who were more well to do, my southern or my northern ancestors?  My northern ones, by far.   Almost all my southern ancestors were poor before the Civil War, were poor after the war, and were poor right up to WWII.

  • suek

    >>…talking out both sides of his mouth, and convincing all sides that he is on their side.>>
    I’m not sure – but isn’t that a trait of a passive agressive?  Someone who is too chicken to state his/her opinions in a definitive manner because they have to appease someone?
    Either that, or a professional manipulator…!
    By the way   Wolf Howling has an excellent article today on this topic…

  • Pingback: » Links to Visit – 04/26/10 NoisyRoom.net: Fighting for the Constitution()

  • Charles Martel

    Tommy, your point about the inefficiency of the slave-based economy is one we should start mentioning every time we hear a race pimp intoning, “America was built on the backs of slaves.” As you pointed out, a small percentage of aristocrats benefited from slavery while the majority of southern freemen were poor. As for the northern economy, it boomed in the absence of slavery.

    What’s really interesting is that one part of America is still building its economy on the backs of former slaves who are now sharecroppers. The sharecropping comes in the form of landowners–Democratic politicians–who “provide” for their poor, hapless, helpless charges by giving them piss-poor public schools, welfare, affirmative action and lots of government jobs. In return for this largesse, blacks “owe” their votes to keep the landowners in power. It’s a nice little closed system, but like its antebellum antecedent, it defies the laws of economics.

    Maybe after the Second Civil War blacks can be delivered once and for all off the plantation.  

  • TommyC

    An awful lot of people – and not just blacks – still live on the ‘plantation’, trading freedom, dignity and responsibility for security.   And that security is starting to look a lot less secure.
    Over the years, I have often wondered who the real racists are.  Those like myself who say that anyone can make it if they give it a shot and never give up, or those who say that certain groups of people are incapable of making it on their own.  I think we know the answer.
    I’m not saying that everyone will have an easy time.  A close friend spend a year teaching math in inner city Trenton.  It was depressing to say the least.  Only a handful of kids had any desire to learn, and they were stuck in an environment where they were ridiculed for trying.  Who is responsible for this?  Racists?  Or well meaning people who tell the disadvantaged that all their problems are other people’s fault, that they can’t make it on their own (they need the kind assistance of the plantation owners to get by), and that they have a right to all sorts of things that others have to earn?  I think we know the answer to that as well.
    Bookworm, I like your stuff.  I beat Rush to this site, but only barely.  I’ll be a regular from now on.


    Several posts here raise the questions … What is freedom and independence and do you want to own it.
    I’d be the last person to generalize about an entire culture. Hell, 77% of my community voted for Obama and while I am not sure of the exact stats, it comes pretty close to the Jewish communities across Europe in the 1930’s,  about 2/3 who could not connect the dots soon enough. It may be those stats that prompted American Jews to try to ‘save’  the black minority by investing their votes and hearts to do the right thing or what seemed to be the right thing.
    Well…here it is 45 years later and rather than own freedom and embrace it, another percentage has decided to embrace modern slavery.  If one continues to self chain themselves to the past there can never be a day of freedom.

  • suek
  • Spartacus

    “I’m not sure – but isn’t that a trait of a passive agressive?  Someone who is too chicken to state his/her opinions in a definitive manner because they have to appease someone?”
    Not that I approve, but it’s worked pretty well for him so far.  Now he just needs to figure a way around Lincoln’s admonition of not fooling all the people all the time… which seems to be gradually catching up with him.

  • Pingback: Watcher of Weasels » Watcher’s Council Nominations April 28, 2010()

  • Pingback: The Colossus of Rhodey()

  • Pingback: Bookworm Room » Too much information — all of which I cheerfully share with you *UPDATED*()

  • Pingback: Soccer Dad()

  • Pingback: Watcher of Weasels » The Council has Spoken 043010()

  • Pingback: Rhymes With Right()

  • Pingback: Watchers Council Results – Incoherent Hustlers | Mere Rhetoric()