I've absolutely no problem saying that I couldn't have stated this any better myself. Thanks once more to Leonard Pitts!
"A few words about who ``we'' is."
"``This is a moment,'' said Glenn Beck three months ago on his radio program, ``...that I think we reclaim the civil rights movement. It has been so distorted and so turned upside down. . . . We are on the right side of history. We are on the side of individual freedoms and liberties and damn it, we will reclaim the civil rights moment. We will take that movement, because we were the people that did it in the first place!'' "
"Beck was promoting his Restoring Honor rally, to be held Saturday at the Lincoln Memorial, 47 years to the day after Martin Luther King famously spoke there. You'll notice he didn't define the ``we'' he had in mind, but it seems reasonable to suppose Beck was speaking of people like himself: affluent middle-aged conservatives possessed of the ability to see socialism and communism in places where it somehow escapes the notice of others."
"If you agree that assumption is reasonable, then you must also agree Beck's contention that his ``we'' were the architects of the civil rights movement is worse than nonsensical, worse than mendacious, worse than shameless. It is obscene. It is theft of legacy. It is robbery of martyr's graves."
"We're in an odd moment. Having opposed the freedom movement of the 20th century, some social conservatives seek, now that that movement stands vindicated and venerated, to arrogate unto themselves its language and heroes, to remake it in their image."
"Thus, you get claims that ``racism'' is now what Shirley Sherrod said in a speech to the NAACP. And people calling Sarah Palin the new face of feminism. And conservatives touting the likelihood that King voted Republican -- as if the party in 1957 bore any resemblance to the party now."
"But even by those standards, Glenn Beck's effrontery is monumental. Even by those standards, he goes too far. Beck was part of the ``we'' who founded the civil rights movement!? No. Here's who ``we'' is."
"``We'' is Emmett Till, tied to a cotton gin fan in the murky waters of the Tallahatchie River. ``We'' is Rosa Parks telling the bus driver no. ``We'' is Diane Nash on a sleepless night waiting for missing Freedom Riders to check in. ``We'' is Charles Sherrod, husband of Shirley, gingerly testing desegregation compliance in an Albany, Ga., bus station. ``We'' is a sharecropper making his X on a form held by a white college student from the North. ``We'' is celebrities like Harry Belafonte, Marlon Brando and Pernell Roberts of Bonanza, lending their names, their wealth and their labor to the cause of freedom."
"``We'' is Medgar Evers, Michael Schwerner, Jimmie Lee Jackson, James Reeb, Viola Liuzzo, Cynthia Wesley, Andrew Goodman, Denise McNair, James Chaney, Addie Mae Collins and Carole Robertson, shot, beaten and blown to death for that cause."
"``We'' is Lyndon Johnson, building a legislative coalition of moderate Republicans and Democrats to defeat intransigent Southern Democratic conservatives and enshrine that cause into law."
"And ``we'' is Martin Luther King, giving voice and moral clarity to the cause -- and paying for it with his life."
"The we to which Glenn Beck belongs is the we that said no, the we that cried ``socialism!'' ``communism!'' ``tyranny!'' whenever black people and their allies cried freedom."
"The fatuous and dishonorable attempt to posit conservatives as the prime engine of civil rights depends for success on the ignorance of the American people. Sadly, as anyone who has ever watched a Jay Walking segment on The Tonight Show can attest, the American people have ignorance in plenitude."
"This, then, is to serve notice as Beck and his tea party faithful gather in Lincoln's shadow to claim the mantle of King: Some of us are not ignorant. Some of us remember. Some of us know very well who ``we'' is."
"And, who ``we'' is not."
Pitts could have named countless other 'we's, black, white and brown.
Not one of them would have been Glenn Beck.
6 comments:
It's easy to take a shot a Beck, particularly when sound bites are the point of reference.
CL Bryant and Col. Allen West will be in DC on 8/28. Their perspectives will be interesting. Though Pitts will eat them alive.
It is pathetic that people like Rev. Walter Fauntroy make outrageous comments, interchanging the names of the Tea Party movement and the KKK. I am white and conservative, so I am automatically a racist? It is people like this that keeps racism alive. Without racism, their lives become meaningless. Without racism, they have no pulpit. Without racism, they can no longer ask for freebies in life. By classifying a whole group of people with a tag or racist, he becomes that which he despises, a racist himself.
Steve,
What I find particularly interesting, is your example of 'the new racism'. Racism is no longer the denial of opportunity to people of color. It is no longer hatred, oppression or intimidation of people of color.
The 'new racism' is pointing out racism. And it only people of color, by this new 'definition', who can be 'racist'.
The idea seems to be, that whites can only be racist, if they are violent and obviously hateful towards blacks and hispanics. But, nothing that whites do, ever gives evidence of that definition. If they use hate speech and racial epithets, its 'free speech'. If they use violence, their violence is trumped by any crime they can cite committed by a black person against a white person; if they spew venom veiled by political rhetoric, it's simply 'frustration' and 'anger'.
And if any of that is identified as racism (of which they can no longer be guilty), then the person who identifies them as such and - gasp - hurts their feelings in the process - well THEY are the one's who are racist.
Of course, mean spirited language is also acceptable, because, of course, since white people can no longer be racist (and 'the new racism' is the mere use of the word 'racist' in relationship to whites), is perfectly permissable, because, of course whites are 'frustrated', and 'angry' and should be relieved of the burden of anything that makes them feel uncomfortable regarding race.
It's just interesting.
Gerald,
Thanks for your reply. Sir, respectfully, your interpretation of my comments, calling them "The new Racism" is bull. I was talking about calling a group of people, good, decent people Klansmen. I gave thought to what you wrote, but cannot understand why you would support someone tagging a large group of individuals with a nasty connotation. Is that not what blacks have claimed that whites have done for years? And taken us to task for it? Why, then would they want to do the same? I judge a person on merit, and how they treat me. Sure, there are idiots in every group. A majority of the tea party people I know are good people, not someone that wants to string a person up by the neck based on color. People like Rev. Fauntroy, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson keep things racially charged because it benefits them, not their race.
Can you give me a solid example of "venom spewed" by the Tea party that would support the tag of Klansmen?
Thanks for your time.
Personally, I don't think all people affiliated with the TEA Party are racists. Although I think that as an organization/movement such as theirs with near intentional limited appeal to a particular demographic is reason for suspicion - one could argue the same thing about Black Panthers (the real ones, not the ones that have been the objects of feigned indignation) or with the Nation of Islam (Black Muslims), with whom I also disagree.
As for examples: Tom Tancredo and his intemperate and intolerant rant at the 1st TEA Party Convention; Michelle Bachman, and her ideological and nonsensical pandering; and Glenn Beck (nuff said) have all made statements that have been racist, demonstrated racial intolerance and definately racial insensitivity. Granted these are the 'stars of the show' as it were. But the news is replete with instances of the racist charged athletes which have characterized a number of their gatherings.
Is there an attempt to change tenor and tone? I think so. Is there a certain appeal that some conservative blacks have to their message? Of course. Does that erase the perception that they appeared to uncritically accept people in their midst with an ideological/racist axe to grind for far too long? No it does not.
I think that the TEA Party is trying to get back to a message of limited government and low taxes. I don't agree with that message. It has a particularly devastating impact on the people with whom I work: mostly poor, minority definately, but mostly white (the majority of the poor in this country happen to be white). And I also think that a political philosophy such as theirs tends to be so narrowly focused that it tells us nothing about what they would do about the larger systemic problems they would create once they go from movement to governance.
As for Rev. Fauntroy, as I have said before, his evaluation of the situation, is born of his own experience with people whose rhetoric matches that of the TEA party from more than 40 years ago. Calls be TEA Party activists and the politicians who pander to them, for 'states rights', 'nullification' and 'succession' are all words that came from people who weren't 'racist' but who were simply trying to 'preserve their way of life'. It may hurt your feelings and those of some others. But that is a period so dark and awful in our country, that if hyperbole and some level of exaggeration keeps us from it, then it may be a good thing.
And, besides, how can a group which vilifies the president on a regular basis with words like 'Hitler', 'socialist', 'communist' and all other manner of invective, be so sensitive about their image?!
Perhaps I was looking at his statement from too personal of a level. But I like the tenets put forth by the Tea Party. I have known a lot of poor in my area, and I do know that they ave held themselves back by to easy access to government help. Granted, there are those truly needy individuals, but the majority of people on welfare, I feel, would do much better in life if there was no lifeline of government.
As for "the way of life", you are looking at it to darkly. I know of very few whites that could not live together with blacks in harmony. The periods of the 40's and 50's were one of growth, and prosperity. Yes, racism was bad. But don't forget all the whites that stood up against it. I still believe that pandering to racial incidents is what keeps the bad things going. I am NOT saying to forget, but that would be the worst mistake possible. I just feel that throwing baseless accusations around, and basing it on the fact of how things were 40 and 50 years ago, does not help at all. So, sir, with that I will end this. It was a joy talking to you. My son is moving to your city this year, and I will be down to visit him next year, and if possible, I would enjoy meeting you. Have a great weekend.
Post a Comment