Calling someone a racist is losing its seriousness, now it’s becoming another political tool.
In May, 1773 the British government devised a plan that gave East India a monopoly over the tea exported to the American Colonies. But the tea that came from East India had a British tax on it, if that tax was paid by the Colonists then they would be accepting the idea that the British government could tax the very people who were trying to free themselves from British rule. Thus sparked the famous Boston Tea Party. The party included Indian disguises, war whooping and dumping shipments of tea into the harbor.
That is where it all began. In recent years conservatives, libertarians and the like have used this theme as a way of expressing their views on government and politics. Many have tried to discredit these new TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Parties charging them with many crimes — among these, racism.
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) will be proposing a resolution this week to officially charge the TEA Party movement with racism. Condemning them with “explicitly racist behavior” and “displayed signs and posters intended to degrade people of color generally and President Barack Obama specifically.”
But I have a shocking fact for the NAACP: If Obama was white we would still have TEA Parties. Because the Tea Parties aren’t about discriminating against African-Americans or President Obama, it’s about taxes. Taxes are where these parties started, and taxes are what these parties are about. Granted, Tea Parties have grown to become about rights, the Constitution, politics and government but racism is not an issue.
How can I say that? Because the NAACP, and those who have attempted to defend its resolution have yet to provide one instance where Tea Parties had any trace of racism. Joseph Farah, editor-in-chief of World Net Daily, said on the Sean Hannity Show today, “All we have here is an empty allegation. I can tell you, as someone who has written a book about this, I have had to look through thousands upon thousands of pictures of signs and posters that Tea Partiers displayed – not once did I see any that showed even the slightest hint of racism.”
Before I go any further let me make one thing clear: There is one in every crowd. There are racist people who are Caucasian, racist Hispanics, racist Asians and racist African-Americans. But in most cases these people are in a minority.
If the NAACP wants to charge an organization with racism, for real, they should take a critical look at the New Black Panther Party (NBPP.) These are the people who were at the 2008 elections in Philadelphia with hoods and night sticks slinging racial insults. These are the people who go to polls and scare off groups of elderly ladies and attempt to physically block others. And is home to King Samir Shabazz who — in a 2009 interview with National Geographic said, “You want freedom? You’re gonna have to kill some crackers! You’re gonna have to kill some of their babies!”
The NBPP was never punished for any of the above. Chairman Malik Shabazz (another member of the NBPP) responded to King Samir’s comment by saying, “I’ll say this. The new Black Panther Party does not believe in going out on the streets and berating black people. We don’t believe in getting up and attacking our people in the streets. We don’t believe in telegraphing what we may or may not do.” Wait, Malik Shabazz essentially said that he doesn’t believe in harming African-Americans and that he doesn’t believe in telling others what they might do. How does that make the situation better?
Then Malik Shabazz talks directly about King Samir Shabazz’s statement, “He has to speak better if he’s going to speak for this organization ever again in the future, he has to speak with a better, more calculated representation, and I believe that he has it in him to do it.” Which means that if Samir Shabazz is going to say that, he needs to say it more eloquently? After Malik Shabazz said that someone asked him, “Well, obviously you don’t believe in killing white babies?” To which he responds, “Not in that context, no, sir.” In what context is it okay to kill any baby?
I’m not saying that this goes for all African-Americans. These people can be considered the racist minority. Here’s my question: Why does the NAACP pick the TEA parties? Why not the NBPP? Why doesn’t the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People actually advocate for harmony between races? Regardless of whether or not you’re African-American, Asian, Caucasian or Hispanic, we are Americans. We need to call out racist organizations, not ones that speak out for Constitutional rights, limited government and lower taxes.
Labeling someone as a racist is becoming a politically correct tool. Not a tool used to identify discrimination, but a tool used to give those you disagree with a stigma in order to advance an agenda. And in this case it is a political agenda.
Update July 21, 2010: The NAACP on the 15th denied calling the TEA parties racist. NAACP President Ben Jealous said, “We aren’t saying that the tea party is racist.” Instead, “What we’re saying is that with their increasing power comes an increasing responsibility to act responsibly … and to call out when they see those things on those signs.” Then what was the point of the resolution? When asked if he thought the TEA parties were racially intensive, he responded: “No, not at all.”
First, they did call the TEA parties “explicitly racist.” Second, that was the point of the resolution. To call out the TEA parties for being racist. But now they claim that it was just a “reminder” not to be racist?