A Takeaway from the 1st Jan 6 public hearing
Liz Cheney nails it:
My takeaway from watching the proceedings:
If Trump was a black man and the insurrectionist mob were black people, AG Merrick Garland and the DOJ would be way ahead of any Congressional Select Committee.
Trump would have been investigated, indicted, arrested, arraigned, prosecuted, tried, convicted, and incarcerated by now…
But, alas, Merrick Garland is a feckless white man…
….who really is not interested in rocking the boat…
06/10/2022 @ 8:32 am
She got that right
No drama at all in her voice but huge drama in her text
If the mob were Black, the physical outcome would have been so different that things wouldn’t be comparable before we got to Garland
06/10/2022 @ 10:37 am
Kosh, you are correct re the first response to the insurrectionists’ storming and siege of the Capitol.
I’m referring to the response of Merrick Garland and the DOJ which would be swift and certain with the end result being long-term incarceration for any and all even remotely connected to the planning and execution of the violence that took place….
06/10/2022 @ 9:27 am
I’ll go you one further. If Barack Obama had done what Donald Trump did, not only would he be in prison, you and I both would likely be in prison, or some sort of detention camp. We might even be dead. With a white leader, criminality is denied or ignored. He’d have to volunteer consequences, at least in part, as Nixon did. On the other hand, if the leader were Black, our American style white supremacy would insist on consequences for his actions, his Blackness…and everyone else’s.
06/10/2022 @ 10:47 am
Bitey, they would declare open season against everyone suspected of breathing while black.
06/24/2022 @ 9:16 am
Reading your comments makes me think that maybe there’s a race war going on out there. Oh, wait. I remember now. It’s been going on since 1876. We need to develop a secret handshake or a campaign button or maybe a tee-shirt so that white people who want join
06/25/2022 @ 4:42 pm
If Obama had done what Trump did it would have been interpreted by a lot of officials and even more in law enforcement (Federal and otherwise) as a race war. It just would have looked like confirmation of what a lot of them already thought.
A Black online friend taught me a lot about White reactions. OS looked like a liberal site and he told me he got a lot of reactions based on his avatar, which was a photo of him. I thought he was exaggerating until I started watching for it. That experience, you should excuse the expression, was a rude awakening. I had no idea that much was going on that I just didn’t notice. The rest of the site was a mix of obliviousness and participation. And it’s not like I needed a tour. I just had to be aware of the phenomenon.
There were two incidents that drove the White fear aspect of it home. Neither made any sense. The first was when he was having a minor argument with a guy, which in this case was frequent because the guy was an asshole, and my friend abruptly offered to meet him for coffee. His response was that he’d meet him at the front door with a shotgun. There was nothing in their interaction that would lead to that making any sense. They bickered. No obvious hatred. Certainly not a hint of a threat of anything. Then, I think on the next OS, it happened in a different way. A woman who argued with him on occasion was talking about keeping her information confidential when I happened to go to her home page on the site and notice that she’d listed her home town. She’s technically very savvy, this looked dopey, so I mentioned it was there. Her tone changed, she sounded like she was about to go legalistic, and said she was worried he’d drive to her town and threaten her kids. Again, never a hint of violence, never a hint of threat, just standard Bb arguing. In both cases the only hint of a cause was his avatar. I argued with these people frequently but no one ever treated me like a physical threat. From what I can see, all of it was triggered by a photograph.
I don’t have a shred of a doubt that Ron and Bitey are right. There are people out there waiting for excuses.
06/24/2022 @ 9:41 am
Alan,
Most white folks are unaware of the fact that there’s been a race based conflict going on in this country since 1776…
That ignorance makes them unwitting combatants in the ongoing war against people of color…
This is why there’s been a surge in the efforts to stifle and suppress the facts and the truth in the education of young people on matters involving race and racism…
06/25/2022 @ 8:27 pm
Kosh,
You say:
“I don’t have a shred of a doubt that Ron and Bitey are right.”
In a comment on my post about grift and the big lie:
Bitey says the following:
“I think white people can’t help but be racist with the constant instruction and pressure of dominant culture.”
I’ve articulated this assertion one way or another throughout my online involvement with posts on the matters of race and racism.
Are you now saying that you join Bitey and me in the assertion that most white folks in America are racists whether they’re aware of it or not?
06/26/2022 @ 4:29 pm
That’s not a new view to me. Where I’ve disagreed with you in the past is about virulent intentional racism. I still think most White Americans would be offended to be thought of as racist and don’t think of themselves as racist. As to racism in the form of attitudes not perceived or acknowledged by the practitioner (possibly wrong noun here), I have no trouble believing that that would apply to at least some extent to the majority of White Americans.
This is actually a case I’ve made before – that the most pervasive form of American racism is apathetic racism rather than hatred. A White neighbor votes for Trump. As I’ve said: The problem isn’t that he hates you, the problem is that you don’t count. He doesn’t view his vote for Trump as having anything to do with you and that is the nature of the problem. He will also avoid looking at racism, avoid seeing racism, and try to believe that as much racism is mythical as he can. However, when the evidence becomes overwhelming enough, and it has to become stupidly, unavoidably overwhelming, he’ll react against it. Trayvon wasn’t enough, even though that kid probably died thinking he was fighting a mugger. Eric Garner wasn’t enough. But Dylann Roof was enough and, thanks to Nikki Hayley (the only time I’m ever likely to thank her for anything), the Confederate Flag became flag non grata in about a week; and George Floyd was enough. Seeing the few instances that are enough means there’s hope, seeing how many instances aren’t enough is scary.
One of the lessons I learned about that was the reaction at the OJ verdict. Here was a case where a high profile Black defendant was able to afford (sort of) attorneys who would really address some sketchy police procedures in that case. Black suspects had been complaining for years and suddenly here was a case where guys fudging the line got caught at it. Using a contaminated blanket as evidence. Marking a sock with blood via pipette or something similar such that there was no splatter like there would have been if they’d been in proximity to a violent stabbing. For once it didn’t work.
The announcement of the verdict comes, Black audiences cheer because for once police officers couldn’t get away with playing games to convict a Black defendant. And White audiences are saying “But he’s guilty. Don’t they care? Is OJ a hero in that community?” not having a clue that there was a way bigger issue than OJ at play. The White audience looked at the evidence issues and ignored them, like What else is new? There was no shock. There was just acceptance, and that acceptance was extremely damning.
06/26/2022 @ 8:44 pm
There is an interesting thing about racism that makes things like reactions to the OJ trial difficult to translate. I’ll do my best here to make how I see it come across clearly.
Racism in the time of slavery, and likely well into the 1960s, was like tax law, or fire codes. It was something that was not questioned in the ways that it is currently. People are stil fond of saying that, although Lincoln freed enslaved Americans, he was not fond of Black people, and considered them inferior. Whether or not that was true, I don’t know, and I don’t particularly care, but to some it is very important to establish that Lincoln did not like Black people. It rest upon the knowledge/belief that Lincoln considered them to be lesser human beings. Watching someone try to establish this point in 2022 shows where racism then and racism now have diverged.
Racism then was ‘just don’t sell me’, ‘just don’t kill me’…etc. We had no hope of having the law to support, value, and protect us, so we just hoped to stay alive, and to keep families together. Racism now can’t count on the law to support the blatant acts of violent racism that it did regularly before the Civil Rights movement. Now it takes a little more propaganda like talk of “super predators”, and such. It hovers around the edges, but it is more of a PR campaign to separate rather than a fire hose and an attack dog. So, now, Black people are not begging to have their rights and lives respected. We consider that gained ground. Now, we expect whites, and particularly white men to take an ethical approach and make contributions to social justice, so that it does not have to be fought for. The jubilation over the acquittal of OJ was not about saving OJ’s skin, but rather fighting to protect the ground where Browns-ness stands. Many too many have been slaughtered because they were Brown, so this acquittal kept from this being added to that long list. Evidence and reasonable suspicion has worked for white men. It was time that it worked for a Black man.
White people will tell you all day long that OJ was guilty, while he was acquitted. Oh, and don’t forget, Lincoln didn’t like you either. For some reason, it is very necessary to jump over the facts to get to the hateful sentiments.
06/26/2022 @ 11:40 pm
This is a phenomenon I get. It’s how racism presents differently now. In the old days there was no use for deniability so people didn’t bother. Now they look for deniability.
06/26/2022 @ 9:36 pm
Bitey, re Lincoln’s posture on equality:
In 1858, Lincoln expressed his opposition to racial equality and asserted the superiority of white people:
“During his famous debates with Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln explained to the crowd: “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races … I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
Lincoln was no different than most white males, North and South, at the time. He was a white supremacist.”
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-lincoln-racism-equality-oppose/
06/27/2022 @ 6:46 am
Here is the thing about that, Ron. Those are public statements made by a politician, to a racist public. What he actually thought can’t really be known, especially since it conflicted so significantly with his actions. My point here is, today, actions are expected to be regulated by the law which governs us all. Sure, it is not being practiced as fairly as possible, but it is our baseline expectation. We go beyond that now to ethical thought. This conversation is about whether or not 50 percent of white Americans are racist. Previously, that would not have been a consideration worth entertaining. Today, we can say that it is an ethical failing when racism can be established, although perfectly legal. This is also why the game, if you will, has shifted into making legal maneuvers around broad ethical principles rather than direct, blunt, obvious applications of racist law. A jury can’t be packed today with white men because it is clear what is being attempted. In the early 20th century the practice would not questioned because juries are made up of registered voters, and only white men could do so. In 1861, a progressive President could deny the concept of the humanity of Black people, but in 2022, even Donald Trump could not openly make such a claim. In today’s conflict WE expect THEM to acknowledge certain realities while we hash out the details. Lincoln’s statements in the middle of the 19th century may have been politically state. How he actually felt was not the issue then, so it should not be a concern now. Raising it now by THEM is merely an attempt to take away that which can not be denied by law. Raising it by US is wasting resources on a territory that has no value, namely feelings. I can reasonably expect a person of that era to question racial differences…or electricity, for that matter. Today, there is no point is such a contest.
(And to be clear, Kosh, you and people who think like you are in the “US” category. These camps of humanitarianism coalesce around philosophy, not DNA).
06/27/2022 @ 7:30 am
Bitey,
“On March 6, 1857, Chief Justice Roger Taney issued what is widely regarded as the worst Supreme Court opinion ever. He noted that the question before the Court was whether African Americans are citizens of the United States and thus able to file suit in federal court. His analysis of that issue is couched in abjectly racist language:
[African Americans] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it.”
Lincoln’s comments about racial equality are made a year after Taney’s declaration in the Dred Scott opinion…
My view is that, rhetorically speaking, the best and the safest approach is to take assertions such as Lincoln’s at face value and take the speaker at his/her word.
When Lincoln issued the executive order known as the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, five years after his utterances in the debate with Douglas, all the slaves were not freed, and there was absolutely no mention made of equality or citizenship for the slaves freed by what should be regarded as a war time tactic and not an expression of moral or ethical approbation re equality for black people.
The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments all came after Lincoln was gone…
06/27/2022 @ 10:38 am
I think I may have been misunderstood. I am not trying to argue for how Lincoln felt. I am saying that it does not matter, and anyone trying to draw you into a conversation over how Lincoln felt is a distraction. 2+2=4, no matter how anyone feels about it. Black people are people…no matter how Lincoln felt about it. Debate over that point today is a distraction. It can be assumed without being debated. It does not need to be stipulated by those who oppose civil rights. They are just wrong. Debating it lends it more credence than it deserves. The discussion of social justice is neither to “praise nor to bury” Lincoln. It is for the purpose of understanding social justice and to enhance it.
07/01/2022 @ 6:36 pm
When they come for my
‘Profiles in Courage’
{…} I’ll say: what’s a matter for you {…}