http:www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/04/16/garofalo_tea_parties_about_white_power.html
“The mainline media concludes that the tea parties were attended by “all white” people who were “a bunch of racists,” and it was all about “hating a black man in the White house.” Again, the attendees were all “tea-banging rednecks.” MSNBC broadcast the opinion that any minority conservatives who did attend the tea parties were identified as “those suffering from Stockholm syndrome.” Stockholm syndrome is the syndrome where a kidnapping victim begins to psychologically identify with their kidnappers.”
I quote this because I believe this mindset is typical of many Americans who consider themselves not racist.
In this banal interview we learn that in order to avoid being considered a white racist one cannot oppose command and control, centralized governments. Indeed, the interview seems to suggest that what makes racist white people racist is that they are opposed to being enslaved by the Federal government.
So, what it means to be typically white and a part of typical white culture is to be for individual freedom and individual responsibility. Anybody who is a minority that is for these things must have a psychological disease. Hence, minorities that attended the tea parties were, according to MSNBC, acting like white people. White people who act this way are to be pilloried and insulted. Minorities who act like white people are apparently to be pitied. This attitude explains the hatred that many black people had and have for Clarence Thomas. Justice Thomas, according to this theory, is behaving white by believing in individual responsibility.
It would seem necessary then to conclude that the superior non-white people and non-white culture is that people and culture that desire to be in slavery to the state, and that which opposes individual freedom and individual responsibility. If a white person wants to be part of the superior non-white culture they have to abandon notions such as personal responsibility and be in favor of some form of collectivism.
Do minorities really desire that what it means to be “Black” or what it means to be “Hispanic” be defined as a culture that is dependent upon the state, as a culture that is for personal irresponsibility, as a culture that desires to be forever beholden to handouts, and as a culture that defines racism and prejudice as being that mindset that opposes those very same things?
You see, I’m confused by all this because if that is what racism means then I am a racist and it would seem to my thinking that everybody should want to be a racist.
They forgot the old saw: “Uncle Tom” or is that racist as well?
Chris,
I quite agree that is what we see when we look around the world. Zimbabwe anybody?
However, the question is do minorities here desire that idea to be identified as what it means to be “black culture” or “hispanic culture.” If that is not what it means to be “black culture” or “hispanic culture” then what does it mean?
And to be honest, there are clearly members of minorities here or there who don’t believe that, but from what I see, those people are largely considered cast outs from their “people.”