Home / General / Teddy Bear Martin Luther King, and Other Pathologies of Winger Thought

Teddy Bear Martin Luther King, and Other Pathologies of Winger Thought

Comments
/
/
/
616 Views

Good one from Tomorrow.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Derelict

    A fine encapsulation of winger derp thinking. I’m especially fond of the bottom-left panel about race hustlers cashing in even though it’s not about race.

    I’m becoming convinced that the psychological hallmark of conservatives is a profound inability to empathize with anyone not absolutely identical to themselves.

    • Ken

      You could leave out “absolutely identical to” in many cases.

    • Snarki, child of Loki

      It’s a profound inability to empathize with people in a situation that they (or some close friend or family member) have not personally experienced.

      This is why, for the good of humanity, ALL manner of calamities MUST be visited upon conservatives: so that they can grow to be fully human.

      When William Kristol is homeless, unemployed, broke, wrongly convicted and brutalized by LEOs, lying in a gutter with several painful debilitating diseases (and no insurance), THEN we might see some progress.

      Get working on it, people!

      • catclub

        Sarah Palin thinks the government has a responsibility to kids with Down Syndrome. Did she show any evidence she thought this before her child arrived with Down syndrome?

        Dick Cheney, only because his daughter is gay, thinks that gay people might be human beings.

        • tsam

          I’m kinda thinking that their kindness toward gay people and developmentally disabled people ends at the people they know. I’ll bet you could “gotcha” Palin into calling helping parents raise disabled kids as nanny state welfare socialism that Jesus would hate.

          • DrS

            Sure, cause those are “the good ones”.

            Still for some conservatives, this actually signifies a major rise on the ol empathy scale. There are plenty of conservatives who hate their gay kids.

      • MAJeff

        When William Kristol is homeless, unemployed, broke, wrongly convicted and brutalized by LEOs, lying in a gutter with several painful debilitating diseases (and no insurance).

        Kristol? I’d give him monopoly money and laugh in his face.

      • Hurling Dervish

        And climate change can’t possibly exist if it’s snowing outside their window.

    • Brett

      Definitely people close by or whom they’ve directly had experience with. I grew up in a conservative suburb, and the people there could be very conservative in voting and politics while also being very charitable and good to their neighbors. It makes the effects of residential segregation by class and race all the more toxic.

      That’s somewhat true for a lot of people – it’s just easier to empathize with those suffering that you know and see than those faraway and unknown (see the relative paucity of foreign aid). Liberals tend to be better at grasping the broader patterns in this, though.

  • Malaclypse

    It really is awesome watching the number of people sure that King would condemn riots.

    • David Hunt

      Dr. King was killed before I turned one and I’m a white guy, so I’m not really qualified, but sometimes I think that the only good response from black leaders to rioting is one inspired by a routine by Chris Rock where he talks about O.J. Simpson’s murder of his ex-wife and Ronald Goldman. He talks various indications that Nicole Brown was actually sleeping with Ronald Goldman, that he occasionally drove her car that O.J. was paying for etc. After each bit of innuendo that implies an affair, Rock would say “I’m not saying he should have done it…but I understand.”

      That is how I as guy who has never had to deal with prejudice imagine the dissonance various black people feel about violent protesting after some rank injustice. They may not condone the violence…but they understand.

      ETA: I may be misquoting Rock’s set up of the “but I understand” line. Also, he’s a master comedian so he could make talking about a brutal murder funny. Please be aware that any indication that Rock’s routine was totally without taste or unfunny is my failure of memory (he did this routing at least 15 years ago) and delivery and not any failure on his part.

      • petesh

        Rock recently:

        When we talk about race relations in America or racial progress, it’s all nonsense. There are no race relations. White people were crazy. Now they’re not as crazy. To say that black people have made progress would be to say they deserve what happened to them before. So, to say Obama is progress is saying that he’s the first black person that is qualified to be president. That’s not black progress. That’s white progress.

        That interview contains lots of good stuff.

        • David Hunt

          Oh absolutely true. That interview is what reminded me about the routine that I mentioned and also reminded me of how smart Rock is and how on-the-nose his observations about race come across to me. To illustrate, I’ll go back years again to some HBO special I saw him in when explained white privilege to the white people in his audience (and me) more succinctly than I’ve ever seen it done: “Not a single one of you white people would trade places with me…an I’m rich.”

          • D.N. Nation

            “Not a single one of you white people would trade places with me…an I’m rich.”

            I can’t stand this quote. Yeah, Chris, I wouldn’t trade places with you, but only because the idea of making a bajillion dollars to make punch-down shit bothers me to the core.

            The essence of what he’s getting at then and now is correct, but hot damn does that quote annoy.

        • SgtGymBunny

          That was a damn good interview…

    • ScarsdaleVibe

      That’s the thing that puzzles me most about conservatives trotting out King to condemn protests that are anything less than, I dunno, obsequious. Ok, the man preached nonviolence and then…his life was violently ended by a racist piece of shit. I think that is a valid reason for activists to think rioting and violence might be justified.

      • JL

        But see, I don’t think they care if activists are killed, as long as they aren’t scary or disruptive*. Which makes me really give the side-eye to liberals – what King might have called “white moderates” – who claim sympathy with the cause but trot out similar arguments regarding tactics.

        *There’s also the related phenomenon of conservatives thinking that King’s vision of protest was way less disruptive than it was – for instance, thinking that King would have condemned protests that disrupted traffic or caused inconvenience to any innocent people. Do they think King’s protesters marched on magical car-less roads? That no innocent bus drivers lost work, that no innocent white commuters had their transit services affected, because of the bus boycotts?

        • Origami Isopod

          Which makes me really give the side-eye to liberals – what King might have called “white moderates” – who claim sympathy with the cause but trot out similar arguments regarding tactics.

          And there are plenty of them out there. I find them much more infuriating than conservatives, because at least with conservatives you don’t expect anything better.

          • tsam

            The issue is to lay blame where it belongs. Rioting is rooted in mistreatment and alienation. It isn’t the black people who doing the mistreating and alienating. Rioting is tragic–innocent people get hurt, but the voices of the riots are at the volume required to get the attention of people who aren’t paying attention.

        • Birmingham Jail, a letter from.

        • John F

          Which makes me really give the side-eye to liberals – what King might have called “white moderates” – who claim sympathy with the cause but trot out similar arguments regarding tactics.

          I think there are legitimate times/places when someone sympathetic to a cause can in good faith dispute the tactics being employed. Too often those who quarrel with tactics are dismissed as concern trolls as a way of avoiding the argument over tactics.

          Of course concern trolls do exist, but usually they are much more blatant than they think themselves to be. (I.e, they are flat-out lying when they say they support/sympathize with something)

          • Origami Isopod

            Nah, I’m pretty sure comfortable white liberals who “support” the cause but somehow feel …uncomfortable about how disruptive the protestors are being; can’t they understand how they’re losing the goodwill of their allies?!… can be safely ignored on this issue.

            • Gayle Force

              Agreed. Here’s a quick and handy guide for white people commenting on black people fighting to make their lives matter:

              1. Are you white?
              2. If yes, then shut the fuck up.

              • tsam

                I see your point, but I’ll counter with this:

                I’m white. I’ve spent the last month telling all my white colleagues that if I were there, I’d be burning shit right alongside the protesters and I would be actively hunting those KKK assholes to kill one or ten of them.

                I’m NEVER going to shut the fuck up about the atrocities black people face in this country. That would make me one of those “white moderates” that keeps his mouth shut in the name of order or to avoid offending someone.

                Not gonna happen.

                • Gayle Force

                  tsam, I don’t disagree. I was speaking directly to white people passing judgment on the manner in which black people protest.

                  I’ve been going around yelling at white people for weeks now – because racism is our problem, and our responsibility to fix. Absolutely. Yell a lot. But on the ground, in the movement, my job as an ally is to shut up, take direction, and support other voices.

                • tsam

                  I know what you were saying–I’m just pointing out that we have a job to educate others (white people, I mean), and some of us are trying.

                • joe from Lowell

                  Between this subthread and the “black people aren’t monolithic” subthread below, I have to ask:

                  Am I allowed to agree with Eric Garner’s parents, or not?

                • tsam

                  U wot m8? Care to explain what you mean by that?

                • joe from Lowell

                  Like Michael Brown’s parents, Garner’s family (not parents, I mixed that up) have made public statements asking protesters to remain peaceful, saying that violence wasn’t the right way to respect their loved ones’ memory.

                • tsam

                  Do I get to be the boss of you now?

                  I happen to agree with what they’re saying. But I also sympathize with people who have had just about enough of being ignored and mistreated. Since us white guys aren’t monolithic in culture and opinion, I’d say you can make up your own mind about that I’ll make up mine.

                  ETA: As long as we all agree that both cases are a miscarriage of justice and that something needs to be done about it.

                • joe from Lowell

                  I generally say no, but there seem to be an awful lot of people who think that answer is yes, so what the hell.

                  I happen to agree with what they’re saying. But I also sympathize with people who have had just about enough of being ignored and mistreated.

                  I’m, if anything, even more torn…because I think stuff changed after the LA riots. I don’t think it coincidental that the community policing movement got started around that time. The Clinton administration DoJ community policing grants, for example.

                  And I feel like I shouldn’t think that mob violence, which was mainly against innocent people and their property, can be an agent for positive change. It violates a whole lot of my values to think that.

                  But I’m not very good at ignoring my lying eyes, either.

                  So…I don’t know, man.

                • tsam

                  I hear you–I’m torn too. The LA riots did spark some change, but what happened to Reginald Denny was just plain wrong.

                  I’m aware that violence has as much of a negative effect as any possible positive, but historically speaking, it has been necessary in many cases to right some pretty terrible wrongs. (The Final Solution being the most obvious example).

                  Believe me, if we could equalize the races and do away with the conflict and oppression without violence, that would be my dream come true. I don’t know if that’s possible.

              • Theobald Schmidt

                Noted for the the next white people purity crusade here whenever black commenters make controversial points.

                • tsam

                  I don’t know what this means. Are you telling me to shut the fuck up?

                • Gayle Force

                  Yup, because you as an individual commenter here are JUST like an entire movement for justice for black folks that has spanned generations, and your comments should be treated accordingly.

                  You are not a crackpot.

                • tsam

                  You got beef, Theo? Did I piss you off or something?

                • Origami Isopod

                  Theo stans for Throttle Jockey and Go Deep, basically. He insisted the other day that TJ couldn’t possibly be a troll and that all his contributions heretofore have been in good faith. So he’s purposefully conflating “White people should trust African-Americans about the experience of being black in the U.S.” with “White people should never argue any points at all with African-Americans.”

                • tsam

                  Well ok then. I’ll ignore it then

          • JL

            I think this is true – tactical debate is part of movements everywhere, and certainly happens amongst Ferguson protesters and other anti-racist-policing protesters nationwide – but it took me a long time to figure out when and why it does and doesn’t work.

            If you’re sitting comfortably on your ass and not doing anything to help a movement, while claiming to sympathize with it, it doesn’t work very well – internal tactical debate can get very heated and ugly, but it’s treated, IME, with a lot more credibility than armchair activist critique. Perhaps more than that, if you center protester misbehavior EITHER over violence in police response, or over whatever problem produced the protests in the first place (for instance, if your words or framing suggest that you prioritize the condemnation of breaking windows over the condemnation of killer cops), a lot of people are going to tell you to go screw.

        • MAJeff

          I was just going to post a comment about the issue of disruption as part of the strategy of non-violence…and there your comment was already.

          So, yeah. Non-violence wasn’t about being non-disruptive. It was very much about being disruptive. On this, I keep coming back to something Richard Flacks wrote in this chapter: “the power of the powerless is rooted in their capacity to stop the smooth flow of social life.”

          King without disruption isn’t King. Nonviolent protest was about disruption, and it was about overloading the system.

          Conservatives are simply full of shit on everything.

        • DrDick

          Liberals want to change the world, a millimeter a decade, but only if we can all be moderate about it.

  • UncleEbeneezer

    Shorter wingnuts: Racism? I haven’t seen a single Klan outfit, burning cross, murdered unarmed black person so this can’t possibly be racism. #Whitelivesmatter(more)

    • politicalfootball

      Gotta keep up with the times*, Uncle E. Charles Murray, who is “not a racist,” has shown us that cross-burning is now one of the activities you can engage in and not be racist.

      *Lily Tomlin: “No matter how cynical I get, I can’t keep up.”

      • UncleEbeneezer

        I figured someone would be quick to point to an example that would prove my satirical skillz insufficient.

  • rmgosselin

    To conservatives, the only good civil rights leader is a dead civil rights leader.

  • tsam

    I just don’t get why they fight it so hard. Seems like there should be a moral conflict with trying to preserve a system that causes constant misery and suffering on a targeted group of people. There’s no excuse for it, and the threadbare bullshit they sell to get people to blame the victims is so conspicuously stupid that it’s painful to watch.

    • Seems like there should be a moral conflict with trying to preserve a system that causes constant misery and suffering on a targeted group of people.

      There is, if you have empathy for the targeted group of people. Therein lies the problem. One can support the system because one actively dislikes the targeted group, but one can also cultivate lack of empathy for the targeted group because one is invested in the continuation of the system.

      • KmCO

        Yep. The system perpetuates social hierarchies, which for conservatives is key to their understanding of the world. To conservatives, fighting the system is anathema and a sign of moral pathology, since the system is seen as operating exactly as it should.

      • tsam

        I get that, but asking yourself a simple question: “Would I like to be treated that way?” isn’t exactly a huge achievement in philosophical thought. I mean, a 4 year old can handle that–why can’t a grown ass fucking man figure it out?

        • Oh, but that’s easy. They’re quite convinced that the ill treatment is all the fault of Brown, Garner, etc., and thus they would never be treated that way because they would never do anything to “deserve” it.

          Sure, they don’t always follow the law to the letter, but that’s different. They’re not criminals, they’re just generally law-abiding people who occasionally slip up, or the laws they break don’t really count (everybody speeds, right?).

          • Colin R

            Our legacy of visible saints. If wealth and prosperity are proof that you are virtuous and worthy, then poverty and abuse by the police are clearly proof that you are unworthy and deserving of your suffering.

          • Snarki, child of Loki

            It starts with picking the right parents.

        • John F

          What everyone else said, no THEY wouldn’t like to be treated that way, but THEY literally cannot conceive that THEY could be treated that way, unless THEY did something to deserve it.

          Of course some, like Rush, apparently have severe narcissistic disorders, no HE wouldn’t like to be treated that way, and even if HE does something that in his mind justifies treating someone else that way, HE still shouldn’t be treated that way… for reasons that he would never ever extend the benefit of the doubt to someone else on.

  • Yes, Dr. King would totally support a police force that is unfettered by any form of restraint because he’d be nostalgic for the good old days of water cannons and dog bites.

    • Malaclypse

      Just like Jesus supports capital punishment.

      • And capitalism!

        • And capitalism punishment!

          • DrDick

            There is a difference?

            • In Soviet Union Merica capital punishes you.

      • njorl

        “Capital punishment got me where I am today!”
        -J. Christ

        • liberal

          Reminds me of the mystery of cross-induced anti-Semitism—what the hell would have happened if no one manned up and killed him?

        • Centurions have a tough job. Jesus was warned several times. When the Roman authorities tell you to do something, just do it. How difficult is this to understand? This has nothing to do with brown skin.

          • postmodulator

            I know that’s a joke, but Resa Aslan’s book Zealot makes it clear that to the Roman authorities, Jesus’s crime was both well-defined and not terribly rare.

            • I agree.

            • Imagine what the Romans would have done if he had organized a street protest or said “Don’t give to Ceasar what he wrongly claims is his.”

              • David Hunt

                My understanding is that is exactly what he did…without saying it explicitly. I’ve heard that the then current Jewish orthodoxy was that everything in all the world belonged to God. Therefore, rendering unto Caesar that which is his after you’ve given God all that belongs to him leaves nothing left. The argument was that Jesus was telling the people to not pay their taxes to Rome, but taking advantage of (presumed) Roman ignorance of Jewish philosophy. He could look a Roman magistrate right in the eye and proclaim, “I said ‘render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. A hundred people heard me say that.’” In short, the theory was that Jesus pioneered political dog-whistling.

                • John F

                  I’ve heard that the then current Jewish orthodoxy was that everything in all the world belonged to God.

                  minor quibble: Jesus wasn’t exactly big on then current Jewish orthodoxy

                • David Hunt

                  “Orthodoxy” may have been a poorly chosen word. Perhaps “Philossphy” is better. A friend of mine made this argument to me about twenty years ago and basics of it that stuck with me was that Jesus was saying what the Romans would hear as “Give Caesar his due.” and what the populace would hear as “Don’t pay your taxes.”

                  As I said, ancient dog-whistling.

                • The Dark Avenger

                  They anticipated that Jesus would oppose the tax(to the Roman authority) as their purpose was “to hand him over to the power and authority of the governor”.[Luke 20:20] The governor was Pilate, and he was the man responsible for the collecting of taxes in Roman Judea. At first the questioners flattered Jesus by praising his integrity, impartiality, and devotion to truth. Then they asked him whether or not it is right for Jews to pay the taxes demanded by Caesar. In the Gospel of Mark[12:15] the additional, provocative question is asked, “Should we pay or shouldn’t we?”

                  Jesus first called them hypocrites, and then asked one of them to produce a Roman coin that would be suitable for paying Caesar’s tax. One of them showed him a Roman coin, and he asked them whose head and inscription were on it. They answered, “Caesar’s,” and he responded: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s”.

                  The questioners were impressed. Matthew 22:22 states that they “marveled” (ἐθαύμασαν) and being satisfied with the answer, they went away.

        • tsam

          njorl for the WIN

    • sparks

      Only now it’d be tanks and tasers.

      • tsam

        More bullets and batons too.

    • KmCO

      When you recreate dead people in your own image, they believe and totally would say everything you’d want them to.

      • John F

        the Master/Mistress has not quite been able to carry taht oplan out successfully

  • FMguru

    Did everyone spot the Jamelle Bouie cameo?

    • Linnaeus

      I did.

  • Dr. Waffle

    Can someone explain wingers’ obsession with Al Sharpton? They seem to regard him as black America’s puppet master, which is odd because a.) black America doesn’t operate like a hive mind, and b.) he hasn’t seemed especially relevant for the last two decades.

    • tsam

      It’s their incessant need to make black people monolithic in thought and behavior. Even the liberal NPR has rhetorically asked why black people don’t give 139% of their support to Obama. He’s black, you know.

      There’s a term thrown around that is so insulting on it’s face as to be almost as bad as the N word, yet draws no ire from anyone. “Black culture”. It’s a euphemism for fried chicken and watermelon, and for some reason people keep getting away with it.

      Black culture in America is American culture, and it doesn’t like them very much.

      • Derelict

        Black culture

        Every time I hear or read this, I have to wonder just WTF it means. Is it the college professor who supports the arts, local reading programs for pre-K kids, and who happens to be Black? Is it the engineers I deal with who have made some brilliant break-throughs in long-range wave propagation, who like driving in the desert, and who happen to be Black? Is it the teenagers listening to rap, dropping out of school, and getting an early start on their criminal records, and who happen to be White? Is it the single mother working two jobs and getting HER mother to help with the kids, and who happens to be Black? Or White?

        I tend to mark this down right next to the gay agenda. For all my gay friends, the agenda is usually: Get up in the morning, shower, eat breakfast, go to work, come home, eat dinner, collapse in front of the TV, go to bed.

        • tsam

          It’s the very definition of racism–the assumption that all of “those people” are the same, and that you can judge them all by the worst or best of them.

          Turns out that reality doesn’t line up with that mentality. There are as many different black personalities as there are black people. But white people don’t let that stop them assuming.

        • John F

          Gangsta Rap of course :-)

        • Theobald Schmidt

          conservatives:black culture::liberals:Southern culture

          It’s a lazy, arrogant way of lumping together and othering your opponents.

          • KmCO

            Shorter Theo: BOTH SIDES DO IT!

          • DrS

            Eh…I’ve only ever pointed out that the south was full of bumpkins cause of their ignorant views on race.

    • Rob in CT

      Growing up, it was Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson who were the reviled “race hustlers.” Have they let go of Jesse? I don’t think they have, based on a post-financial crash rant by my father (apparently Jesse Jackson made the gummint force banks to give out loans to poor black people, and that caused the financial crash, dontchaknow?).

      • sharculese

        Short attention span?

        Jackson keeps a lower profile than Sharpton as of the moment, so they forget he’s destroying America?

        • postmodulator

          It’s actually become one of the easy ways to spot a racist online: a racist is a person with an encyclopedic knowledge of the Tawana Brawley case. I think it must be something Stormwatch hammers on.

    • SatanicPanic

      Just in case they need to use him after he’s dead. I mean, it’s hard enough sweeping MLK’s unpleasant (to them) views under the rug, imagine having to do that with multiple people.

      • Dr. Waffle

        @tsam

        Your point in regards to “black culture” can’t be stressed enough. That term, along with “thug,” allows white people to say the n-word without actually having to say the n-word. Someone really needs to write a full history of racist rhetoric and how it’s evolved in the post-Civil Rights era.

        • Dr. Waffle

          Whoops. Sorry SatanicPanic!

        • Derelict

          Earlier this year, I edited someone’s doctoral dissertation on subtle racism and racist rhetoric. White people don’t have even a vague clue what Blacks have t put up with in this society.

        • tsam

          Somebody should. If I were ever a victim of racism, I’d write it myself, though being unable to identify with that, I’m not sure I’d be qualified to do the job any real justice.

          But yes, one word becomes unacceptable, and another pops back up in its place. Dogwhistle Whack-a-Mole.

    • Malaclypse

      Can someone explain wingers’ obsession with Al Sharpton?

      A germane catch from Roy. Because in Al Sharpton’s America, dogwhistles are bullhorns.

      • John F

        Can someone explain wingers’ obsession with Al Sharpton?

        Because he’s a patently unserious blowhard with bad hair, because if the Rev Al is THE leader of all blacks and speaks for all blacks, then when ever the mood hits they can point to something false/ludicrous bloviated by the Rev Al and thereby dismiss all concerns that the blacks have about something.

        Al Sharpton is the “leader” that wingnuts wish Black America had, if he speaks for blacks it then becomes easier to dismiss whatever concerns that blacks have.

      • JL

        Victor Davis Hanson just has no self-awareness, does he? He writes a bunch of words bellyaching about how Al Sharpton and his followers want people to take their beatings and not defend themselves, without seeming to notice that that’s exactly what he and his ilk think should happen if the beater is a cop.

    • Jordan

      Al Sharpton Is Not The Emperor Of Black People!

      (ok, ok, that was Jesse Jackson. But still).

      • DocAmazing

        Godspeed You!

    • KmCO

      You’re assuming an incredible degree of nuance on the part of conservative attitudes. To put it simply, conservatives tend to be incredibly tribal people; their sense of us-vs.-them is strong. Black Americans are by and large relegated to the “them” category. They are therefore seen as a monolith whose attitudes, beliefs, and behavioral tendencies are understood only as “unlike ours.” A fancy term for the phenomenon is outgroup homogeneity effect.

    • Al Sharpton was unanimously voted Emperor of all Black People at the last New Black Panther Party Central committee.

    • black America doesn’t operate like a hive mind

      The average person will believe that around the same time the average person understands that Africa is a huge continent incredibly diverse and not a country.

      Besides, it is very hard to maintain stereotypes if you start seeing people as individuals.

  • DrDick

    These are the same people who unironically claim to be the party of Lincoln.

    • liberal

      Is that really true? Given how much they love treason in defense of slavery, I would think they’d abhor Lincoln. Then again, most of them don’t know much about history.

      • postmodulator

        Actually, why have the Neo-Confederates never tried any historical revisionism vis-a-vis Lincoln?

        • Hogan
          • postmodulator

            Live and learn!

            Napolitano’s got one of those faces you would never get tired of punching.

        • tsam

          Direct quote from my high school history teacher whose job was actually the football coach:

          “The Civil War was NOT about slavery. It was an economic war.”

          So conservatives, neo-confederates, and many other crazy people have been furiously rewriting the narrative to create the impression that it was really a War of Northern Aggression.

          • John F

            have been furiously rewriting

            they started with that narrative before reconstruction ended.

            As one of my history profs once said, the Civil War was odd in that the winners didn’t write the history the losers did. Northerners were tired, Southerners were obsessed, and the active falsification began immediate;y and continued unending till today.

            Of course it was about slavery, and “free soil” – an economic system based upon slavery not only made some people slaves how would you like to be a “free man” who had to compete with a slave-owner for land, or a free man who needed his wages, but had to “compete” with slaves- slavery would absolutely bar the development of a middle class, decent life for anyone BUT slaveowners – this was pretty much understood by EVERYONE outside Dixie, but inside Dixie it couldn’t even be debated, there was no meaningful freedom of speech or the press in the pre-Civil War south- because literally god forbid the non-slave owning whites ever got any actual ideas either.

          • advocatethis

            One of my daughter’s history teachers teased the class by suggesting that the war was not about slavery, then circled around to show them that it was only about slavery. It took some time, though, and I about blew a gasket waiting for the payoff as I asked her for daily updates.

            • tsam

              Way to be patient. I might have lost my shit at the first mention of it.

              • advocatethis

                I’d heard good things about him from her earlier in the semester, so I was hopeful, but wary, as things developed.

          • Hogan

            Slavery, obviously, having nothing to do with economics.

      • It varies depending on what a liberal is saying at the time.

      • Derelict

        Don’t fool yourself–there’s a whole little subgroup working on “correcting” the history about Lincoln. Just as with King, the tactic is to grab small snippets out of context, and then torture those snippets into conformity.

        Example: Lincoln once said his goal was to save the Union, and if he could do so without freeing any slaves, he would. To the Lincoln revisionists, this “proves” Lincoln didn’t care about slavery AND the war wasn’t about slavery. Left out are all the words before and after that little snippet that completely contradict their point.

      • David Hunt

        Well, to bring matters back to the original post, they try to claim that MLK would agree with everything they’re doing today. Why not Lincoln, too?

    • tsam

      I Reagan has dethroned Lincoln in the last 30 years or so. Not a single one of their views squares with any of Lincoln’s presidency, so he was just a figurehead anyway. (From the beginning of the 20th Century, anyway)

      • Derelict

        That’s okay–many of their views don’t square with Reagan’s either. Today, St. Ronnie would be viewed as a squish at best, and as an ultra-extreme far-left commie by most Teahadis.

        • tsam

          They’d call him RINO Reagan and show him a real populist (LOL) conservative like Ted Cruz.

          It’s a strange paradox to be looking back at a nutjob like Reagan and thinking to myself “wow–I wish they were only THAT crazy.”

          • advocatethis

            at least we do still recognize that he was crazy, and a racist too, in his smiling kindly old uncle Ron way.

          • David Hunt

            From what I’ve read, Reagan was always as publicly conservative as he could get away with politically. If the party moved further to the Right, he’d have been right there leading the charge.

            • tsam

              I don’t doubt that. He would probably be a lot like Cruz today.

    • calling all toasters

      Well, for the moment they aren’t advocating slavery. Under that name.

      • tsam

        Some have gone as far as saying that black people had it better as slaves than in the Reconstruction era…That reads as at least an implication that slavery wasn’t such a bad thing. So while they aren’t saying it outright, they are doing the wink and nudge.

        • postmodulator

          “You know, the slaves had it surprisingly good the first way we exploited them. The second way was much worse. Bring back slavery, and save black Americans from, well, us.”

  • Origami Isopod

    Tangentially related: Ron Fournier is true to form.

    • Origami Isopod

      Also: Harvard Law School professors step over the bodies of students who are holding a “die-in” to protest polite brutality.

      • tsam

        I have to laugh at your “polite brutality” typo. Sorry, but it’s funny.

        • Origami Isopod

          HAHAHA – I completely missed that.

          • DrS

            Oh, that’s amazing. Love it.

            • tsam

              It’s like Canadian brutality.

  • UserGoogol

    I really don’t like Tom Tomorrow as a cartoonist. It falls in a sort of uncanny valley of satire, it’s not exaggerated enough to really be funny, but it’s not straightforward enough to just be a direct attack. And the talking heads formula is just lazy, artistically speaking. I’m not particularly fond of the art style either, but that’s more of a personal taste thing.

  • so-in-so

    MLK has reached the point where complaining about him produces a backlash, so the Right pretends that he simply made a nice speach, after which everyone saw the wisdom of his thoughts and made changes without any need for violence or protest. That modern conservatives won’t listen to any black protest demands is simply because they are non-sensical, unlike MLK.

    I think it was Edwin Meese who sponsored a session at some conservative conference on ousting Lincoln from the GOP pantheon. He only comes up to try and convince black people that they should vote GOP and to price that Democrates are the REAL racists.

It is main inner container footer text