quote:
“I mean, here are a group of people who are admittedly racist, who are overtly political, who tried as best they can to harm President [Barack] Obama in every way they can,” Bond continued....When asked if his assessment of the Tea Party was “a little harsh,” Bond said that it was not. “The truth hurts,” Bond insisted.[emphasis added]
comment:
Julian Bond, a familiar name. I recall a PBS show that aired many years ago ( when I still watched TV). On that show, Bond compared the use of the word "racist" with "nigger".
He advocated the use of the word racist in the same way as the now understood offensive "n-word".
Just think about that for a moment. When he uses the word racist, he, in his own mind, is calling you a "nigger". That's the meaning of what he said in that PBS show. It's what he means. He does it intentionally and hurtfully. It means a way of marginalizing someone else. Gaining power over someone else.
If you are black, you are supposed to be offended when someone calls you a "nigger". Why can't the same be said when he calls you, a white person, a racist?
Additionally, he hasn't demonstrated the truth that he asserts with regards to "racism". But even if he were right, and it is wrong to say something true, then why is it wrong to call him a "nigger"? He is black, is he not? Isn't that true? Doesn't the truth hurt a little?
Yet, one more thing. He says it's okay to hurt the Tea Party, but not okay to hurt Obama. Isn't that a bit of hypocrisy? If it is wrong to hurt Obama, it is also wrong to hurt the Tea Party. In any event, it is called free speech. Obama is a political figure. He jumped into that arena. He is fair game. It goes with the territory.
No comments:
Post a Comment