Will the Real Racist Please Stand Up?

One of my favorite quotations is "Ye who finds racism where racism is not is, in fact, a racist yeself."

In the past week there have been two separate stories hinting at racism. Or maybe it's something else. I'll let you decide.

We'll start with my favorite racist, the Reverend Jesse Jackson. Yes, I called him a racist. He and his cohort, the Reverend Al Sharpton (do you see the similarity between the two? I wonder what God will say to these purveyors of hate when they finally reach the promised land?), can find racism in any story, in any event, in anything. (BTW, in case someone is thinking, "Hey this is libel!" Sorry, it's my opinion about public figures, which means the First Amendment protects me as long as I don't say a false statement of fact with 'actual malice'.)

Last week Lebron James jumped ship (I mentioned it before) from Cleveland to Miami. The owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers published a letter to the Cleveland fans decrying Lebron James for his actions and vowing to win a championship for Cleveland before Miami does the same with Lebron. After that letter, Jesse Jackson had to speak his mind.

Of course, what does the ultimate racist do but find racism where racism is not. He compared the letter by the owner to how a "runaway slave" is treated. All of Cleveland felt betrayed by Lebron - evidenced by the events where they burned his jerseys, some of which were valued at hundreds of dollars, if not more. Do their actions speak of Lebron James as a runaway slave too?

Dan Gilbert can speak his mind. All he did was voice the heartbreak over one of Cleveland's favored sports personality. Mind you, Lebron James is from Cleveland. He dished the Cavaliers. They have every right to be mad and to voice that anger. Who is Jesse Jackson to voice his opinion in such a manner as to compare Dan Gilbert to a slave owner? Jesse Jackson has an agenda and that agenda is to keep his ego in the media by doing what he loves to do - accusing whites of being racists even when they aren't. Mr. Jackson I have a message for you: read "The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf" before you open your mouth again.

Earlier this week, the NAACP voted to condemn "racism in the Tea Party." Their claims of bigots in the tea party and the acceptance of bigotry by the tea party are evidenced by the supposed incident when a black lawmaker had a racial slur yelled at him while walking to the Capital Building and tea party gatherings where signs showing President Obama in white face or compared to a monkey were on view.

Recently on CNN, the leader of the NAACP, Ben Jealous said anyone waving a sign which could be viewed as racist should be escorted away. First off, is bigotry racism? Not necessarily. Remember racism is defined as a believe that one's race is better than another. A bigot is one intolerant of or prejudiced against those of differing religious beliefs, political opinions, race, etc. Being prejudiced against someone is not necessarily meaning the bigot believes he's better than the other. It is given all racists are bigots; it is not given that all bigots are racists. More than likely, most bigots are racists; but that means there are some bigots who are not racists.

So why is the NAACP claiming the Tea Party tolerates racists? I obviously cannot answer that question. But I'm sure it is purely political. But I digress.

Secondly, the NAACP wants the Tea Party to speak out against any view which might be construed as racist with more fervor than the Tea Party has done in the past. Well I think the Tea Party should pass a referendum condemning the NAACP for the racists the NAACP tolerates. I'm speaking of the New Black Panthers. In 2008, King Shamir was charged with interfering with an election when he stood in front of a polling place with a night stick and spoke ill to white voters to turn them away. Those charges have recently been dropped by Eric Holder. Now a DOJ lawyer has resigned over the issue. King Shamir, a bastion of good race relations, championed killing "white babies." Why have we not heard the NAACP condemning these people?

Some would say a black man saying blacks should kill white babies is more racist than Obama painted like the anarchist "The Joker" from The Dark Knight. The "white face" Obama, as I interpreted the sign, was drawing a reference to a character that "wanted to watch the world burn." I took it as a symbolic reference to how the President's policies are viewed in relation to our Country's future. Of course, the word "socialism" was below the picture and the picture was similar to the "hope" posters which were displayed during the election. Now I am not a black man so I might not react a specific way to this but I don't see anything racial in the poster.

So is there a difference between the supposed bigots crashing the Tea Party rallies and the Black Panther Party relationship to the NAACP? No. The Tea Party should not "CENSOR" the people who come to the rallies even if their view is not part of the rally message. This would be a violation of the First Amendment. Escorting people away whose view is different from yours in a way to silence them is the same as censorship. A vile and disgusting viewpoint cannot be silenced by the majority even to protect the minority. To do so violates the principles upon which this country was founded.

While I find King Shamir's opinion vile and disgusting, I respect his right to voice that opinion. Why can't the NAACP do the same? Instead of condemning the Tea Party, they should condemn the individuals concerned but only if the individuals truly deserve it. Again, the NAACP has political gains. Racism is not involved, it's just an easy tool to use. But using racism as a tool when racism is not present is no better, and I would argue it is worse, than racism itself.

Ye who finds racism where racism is not is, in fact, a racist yeself. Would the real racists please stand up? Oh wait, never mind, your actions have already rooted you out....

Mike

Definitions retrieved from dictionary.com app on the iPhone.