Growing up in northern New Hampshire, the ongoing debates emanating from the Civil Rights movement were an intellectual exercise for classroom discussion or debate over coffee. “The Great White Hope” was Larry Bird. Race-based police brutality and false cries of police brutality were something read about only in a newspaper. As such, my opinion on race relations and the like are often dismissed as naive, uneducated or illegitimate. To help correct this, I borrowed the book “Police Brutality” from a friend. The book, a symposium of letters, opinions, articles and other written works gathered over many years, emphasizes the negative impact police brutality has had on the black and minority populations in the United States
For the first time, I have something of an empathetic understanding as to why Professor Gates reacted the way he did to Officer Crowley’s entrance into his home, as well as why the friendly fire killing by a white police officer of a black off-duty police officer in Harlem this past spring elicited such a negative reaction. While I do believe Gates was wrong, and the police shooting truly was a misunderstanding, I am beginning to understand the other point of view. Unfortunately, too many public and private figures do not seem aware of the negative impact of improper application of race relations
Two easy examples of race-baiting occurred just this past Wednesday. On the one side we have Drudge Report linking to a Breitbart article. The link was entitled, “President tries to build mo’ for health push.” While Drudge does a lot for conservatives, this is not one of his more admirable attempts. On the other side we have Daily Kos with this classy commentary on its main page, stating that what Glenn Beck means when he targets ‘”socialist” and “communist” radicals’ is the racial separation of the pre-Civil Rights movement.
The fact is that we have questionable race policies on both sides. Republicans, for example, have used the Southern Strategy for a couple of generations now, taking advantage of racial strife to win elections. Democrats have convinced poor minorities that welfare policies, affirmative action and public schools are the best route to getting out of the rat race of the poverty common in the inner city, despite evidence to the contrary (such as the DC voucher system or the 1996 Welfare Reform Bill). Both parties are guilty of it, though I tend to think Republican policy is less so- at least we strive for racial blindness in policy if not always in rhetoric.
When it comes down to it, however, to accuse Democrats of racism is generally misleading. Many believe in affirmative action for good and honorable reasons, for example, including concerns that whites have had nine generations in America to succeed and blacks have had two difficult ones. (Others, like Governor Paterson of New York, some leaders in Atlanta, GA and Al Sharpton, are honest-to-goodness race-baiters.)
Similarly, Democrats who accuse Republicans of racism are, by and large, manipulating the truth. This is the same party that brought in Michael Steele to be the head of the RNC, Colin Powell for Secretary of State (some even wanted him to run for president) and Condoleeza Rice for Secretary of State. Yes, we have our racists, too— certainly some of the tea party activists have made racist comments and held up racist signs (though the number is unknown, since LaRouche supporters have also held up the same signs), The New York Post’s gorilla editorial was horribly offensive, and the now-infamous Tennessee state senator staffer who sent out a racist picture of American presidents doesn’t help matters.
In the short run, race-baiting makes for good times for anonymous posters, high ratings for media personnel and positive election results for politicians. In the long run, however, can we all please grow up? Life’s tough enough without bringing us back 40, 50 or even 100 years. Most Americans want to ignore race in their politics, and do, but it’s difficult with both parties and their pundits creating vitriol with little thought of its consequences. Both parties have work to do. Let’s start with Democrats using logical arguments instead of emotion and fear to create policy, and with Republicans remembering that there is a line between respect and political correctness that we too often step over.
September 15th, 2009 at 7:37 am
How is “President tries to build mo’ for health push” racist?
September 15th, 2009 at 7:48 am
That’s what I was wondering Bob. Obviously ‘mo’ means momentum, and it’s used all the time with no relationship to race whatsoever.
September 15th, 2009 at 7:55 am
Exactly — if fact the linked article uses the full momentum. “Mo” could be interpreted as being a use of Ebonics, I suppose, if it were used as a short form of “more” — but that isn’t the case here.
September 15th, 2009 at 7:58 am
Joementum!
September 15th, 2009 at 9:29 am
I was thinking about this last evening…how everything seems to be about ‘race’, lately.
That said, for all my whitey friends, ‘Mo’ is not an ebonics term. (I think)
September 15th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
While there are many problems with this post, it’s nice to see some conservatives who wish to elevate the debate. Thanks Dustin.
When you put “mo” in a sentence about a black president it’s probably race baiting. (But racialized language is so nuanced it’s hard to be 100% certain.)
Yes, “mo’” is slang. Please see the title of the 1992 feature “Mo’ Money” or the Grammy nominated song from The Notorious B.I.G. and Puff Daddy, “Mo Money Mo Problems.”
Movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104897/
Song: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mo_Money_Mo_Problems