http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_3915.shtml
All,
This is precisely the kind of infantile and smugly moronic "logic" that so many clueless American (pseudo) leftists indulge in as if their own arrogant self righteous blather and self proclaimed "moral" superiority is in itself going to change anything or anyone on its own. This kind of cynical and sophomoric "thinking" is not mature or visionary political insight or leadership--it's masturbation. The American left desperately needs to learn HOW TO THINK first before it can properly educate, organize, and mobilize others. But if it persists in just acting as though "revolution" is the mere result of simply finding the "right" leaders, ideology, and agenda and then getting everyone to "follow them" then it will continue to defeat itself before it even begins. You would think the Left would finally understand by now that truly mass-based political, economic, and cultural change doesn't happen in that way and NEVER HAS...But instead of actively working for a much broader, dynamic, creative, and far more profound vision it contents itself with lazy boneheaded lectures to the converted about why they're right and everyone else is wrong. Real change requires and encompasses a whole lot more than that. But if you pretend to know and understand everything already, why listen--right?
Kofi
ELECTIONS & VOTING
Chomsky, Zinn, and Obama
By Mickey Z.
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Oct 24, 2008
“You don’t stick a knife in a man’s back nine inches, and then pull it out six inches, and say you’re making progress.” --Malcolm X
Another Election Day approaches and I’m reminded of something the late Pakistani dissident, Eqbal Ahmad said about Noam Chomsky in the book, Confronting Empire (2000): “He (Chomsky) has never wavered. He has never fallen into the trap of saying, ‘Clinton will do better.’ Or ‘Nixon was bad but Carter at least had a human rights presidency.’ There is a consistency of substance, of posture, of outlook in his work.”
But along came 2004 . . . when Chomsky said stuff like this: “Anyone who says ‘I don’t care if Bush gets elected’ is basically telling poor and working people in the country, ‘I don’t care if your lives are destroyed.’” And like this: “Despite the limited differences [between Bush and Kerry] both domestically and internationally, there are differences. In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes.”
Standing alongside Chomsky was Howard Zinn, saying stuff like this: “Kerry, if he will stop being cautious, can create an excitement that will carry him into the White House and, more important, change the course of the nation.”
Fast forward to 2008 and Chomsky sez: “I would suggest voting against McCain, which means voting for Obama without illusions.” And once again, Howard Zinn is in agreement: “Even though Obama does not represent any fundamental change, he creates an opening for a possibility of change.” (Two word rejoinder: Bill Clinton)
This strategy of choosing an alleged “lesser evil” because he/she might be influenced by some mythical “popular movement” would be naïve if put forth by a high school student. Professors Chomsky and Zinn know better. If it’s incremental change they want, why not encourage their many readers to vote for Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney? The classic (read: absurd) reply to that question is: “Because Nader or McKinney can’t win.”
Of course they can’t win if everyone who claims to agree with them inexplicably votes for Obama instead. Paging Alice: You’re wanted down the goddamned rabbit hole.
Another possible answer as to why folks like Chomsky and Zinn don’t aggressively and tirelessly stump for Nader or McKinney is this: 2004 proved that the high profile Left is essentially impotent and borderline irrelevant. Chomsky and Zinn were joined in the vocal, visible, and vile Anybody-But-Bush ranks by “stars” like Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, Medea Benjamin, Sean Penn, Barbra Streisand, Manning Marable, Naomi Klien, Phil Donahue, Barbara Ehrenreich, Martin Sheen, Bruce Springsteen, Eddie Vedder, Cornel West, etc., etc., and John Kerry still lost.
News flash: The “poor and working people in the country” that Chomsky mentions above are paying ZERO attention to him or anyone like him . . . and that’s a much bigger issue than which millionaire war criminal gets to play figurehead for the empire over the next four years.
Zinn talks about Obama and the “possibility of change.” It seems odd to be asking this of an octogenarian but: Exactly how much time do you think we have?
Every twenty-four hours, 13 million tons toxic chemicals are released across the globe; 200,000 acres of rainforest are destroyed; more than 100By plant or animal species go extinct; and 45,000 humans (mostly children) starve to death. Each day, 29,158 children under the age of five die from mostly preventable causes.
As Gandhi once asked: “What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?”
I promise you this: The human beings (and all living things) that come after us won’t care whether we voted for Obama or McCain in 2008 . . . if they have no clean air to breathe, no clean water to use, and are stuck on a toxic, uninhabitable planet. They’d probably just want to ask us this: Why did you stand by and let everything be consumed or poisoned or destroyed?
Conclusion: A vote for either John McCain or Barack Obama is—at best—an act of criminal negligence.
Mickey Z. is author of two new books, CPR for Dummies and No Innocent Bystanders. He can be found on the Web at www.mickeyz.net.
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor
What the critics are saying about 'Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story' (A Political Documentary)
http://www.boogiemanfilm.com/reviews/
Kofi
P.S. Ishmael Reed is one of the people that the filmmaker Stefan Forbes interviewed in the film!
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/john-farrell/2008/10/28/barack-obama-is-no-socialist.html
All,
A very clear explanation of Obama's actual tax plan...Unfortunately for us the only real socialism in the United States at the moment is that reserved exclusively for the rich (i.e. the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street which was passed by Congress and President Bush and that both Obama and McCain signed off on as Senators last month)...
Kofi
Barack Obama Is No Socialist
All,
This is precisely the kind of infantile and smugly moronic "logic" that so many clueless American (pseudo) leftists indulge in as if their own arrogant self righteous blather and self proclaimed "moral" superiority is in itself going to change anything or anyone on its own. This kind of cynical and sophomoric "thinking" is not mature or visionary political insight or leadership--it's masturbation. The American left desperately needs to learn HOW TO THINK first before it can properly educate, organize, and mobilize others. But if it persists in just acting as though "revolution" is the mere result of simply finding the "right" leaders, ideology, and agenda and then getting everyone to "follow them" then it will continue to defeat itself before it even begins. You would think the Left would finally understand by now that truly mass-based political, economic, and cultural change doesn't happen in that way and NEVER HAS...But instead of actively working for a much broader, dynamic, creative, and far more profound vision it contents itself with lazy boneheaded lectures to the converted about why they're right and everyone else is wrong. Real change requires and encompasses a whole lot more than that. But if you pretend to know and understand everything already, why listen--right?
Kofi
ELECTIONS & VOTING
Chomsky, Zinn, and Obama
By Mickey Z.
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Oct 24, 2008
“You don’t stick a knife in a man’s back nine inches, and then pull it out six inches, and say you’re making progress.” --Malcolm X
Another Election Day approaches and I’m reminded of something the late Pakistani dissident, Eqbal Ahmad said about Noam Chomsky in the book, Confronting Empire (2000): “He (Chomsky) has never wavered. He has never fallen into the trap of saying, ‘Clinton will do better.’ Or ‘Nixon was bad but Carter at least had a human rights presidency.’ There is a consistency of substance, of posture, of outlook in his work.”
But along came 2004 . . . when Chomsky said stuff like this: “Anyone who says ‘I don’t care if Bush gets elected’ is basically telling poor and working people in the country, ‘I don’t care if your lives are destroyed.’” And like this: “Despite the limited differences [between Bush and Kerry] both domestically and internationally, there are differences. In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes.”
Standing alongside Chomsky was Howard Zinn, saying stuff like this: “Kerry, if he will stop being cautious, can create an excitement that will carry him into the White House and, more important, change the course of the nation.”
Fast forward to 2008 and Chomsky sez: “I would suggest voting against McCain, which means voting for Obama without illusions.” And once again, Howard Zinn is in agreement: “Even though Obama does not represent any fundamental change, he creates an opening for a possibility of change.” (Two word rejoinder: Bill Clinton)
This strategy of choosing an alleged “lesser evil” because he/she might be influenced by some mythical “popular movement” would be naïve if put forth by a high school student. Professors Chomsky and Zinn know better. If it’s incremental change they want, why not encourage their many readers to vote for Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney? The classic (read: absurd) reply to that question is: “Because Nader or McKinney can’t win.”
Of course they can’t win if everyone who claims to agree with them inexplicably votes for Obama instead. Paging Alice: You’re wanted down the goddamned rabbit hole.
Another possible answer as to why folks like Chomsky and Zinn don’t aggressively and tirelessly stump for Nader or McKinney is this: 2004 proved that the high profile Left is essentially impotent and borderline irrelevant. Chomsky and Zinn were joined in the vocal, visible, and vile Anybody-But-Bush ranks by “stars” like Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, Medea Benjamin, Sean Penn, Barbra Streisand, Manning Marable, Naomi Klien, Phil Donahue, Barbara Ehrenreich, Martin Sheen, Bruce Springsteen, Eddie Vedder, Cornel West, etc., etc., and John Kerry still lost.
News flash: The “poor and working people in the country” that Chomsky mentions above are paying ZERO attention to him or anyone like him . . . and that’s a much bigger issue than which millionaire war criminal gets to play figurehead for the empire over the next four years.
Zinn talks about Obama and the “possibility of change.” It seems odd to be asking this of an octogenarian but: Exactly how much time do you think we have?
Every twenty-four hours, 13 million tons toxic chemicals are released across the globe; 200,000 acres of rainforest are destroyed; more than 100By plant or animal species go extinct; and 45,000 humans (mostly children) starve to death. Each day, 29,158 children under the age of five die from mostly preventable causes.
As Gandhi once asked: “What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?”
I promise you this: The human beings (and all living things) that come after us won’t care whether we voted for Obama or McCain in 2008 . . . if they have no clean air to breathe, no clean water to use, and are stuck on a toxic, uninhabitable planet. They’d probably just want to ask us this: Why did you stand by and let everything be consumed or poisoned or destroyed?
Conclusion: A vote for either John McCain or Barack Obama is—at best—an act of criminal negligence.
Mickey Z. is author of two new books, CPR for Dummies and No Innocent Bystanders. He can be found on the Web at www.mickeyz.net.
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor
What the critics are saying about 'Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story' (A Political Documentary)
http://www.boogiemanfilm.com/reviews/
All,
If you really want to understand the direct historical, ideological, and political source of the heinously racist Republican rightwing attack on Obama GO SEE THIS FILM IMMEDIATELY (Click on the link above for information). It's the story of the notorious Lee Atwater, a vicious political operative/hitman for Bushwhacker One and the slimy mentor of none other than the contemptible Karl Rove. It was Atwater who effectively destroyed Michael Dukakis campaign for the Presidency (in one of the most inept and cowardly political campaigns by a Democratic Party candidate in history) by using the infamous Willie Horton ad in 1988 against Dukakis. If you want to know exactly how the pathological Republican Party and their protofascist minions operate (and understand precisely why Sarah Palin is the very latest product of everything that Atwater stood for and represented) SEE THIS FILM. COMING TO A THEATRE NEAR YOU!!
If you really want to understand the direct historical, ideological, and political source of the heinously racist Republican rightwing attack on Obama GO SEE THIS FILM IMMEDIATELY (Click on the link above for information). It's the story of the notorious Lee Atwater, a vicious political operative/hitman for Bushwhacker One and the slimy mentor of none other than the contemptible Karl Rove. It was Atwater who effectively destroyed Michael Dukakis campaign for the Presidency (in one of the most inept and cowardly political campaigns by a Democratic Party candidate in history) by using the infamous Willie Horton ad in 1988 against Dukakis. If you want to know exactly how the pathological Republican Party and their protofascist minions operate (and understand precisely why Sarah Palin is the very latest product of everything that Atwater stood for and represented) SEE THIS FILM. COMING TO A THEATRE NEAR YOU!!
Kofi
P.S. Ishmael Reed is one of the people that the filmmaker Stefan Forbes interviewed in the film!
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/john-farrell/2008/10/28/barack-obama-is-no-socialist.html
All,
A very clear explanation of Obama's actual tax plan...Unfortunately for us the only real socialism in the United States at the moment is that reserved exclusively for the rich (i.e. the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street which was passed by Congress and President Bush and that both Obama and McCain signed off on as Senators last month)...
Kofi
Barack Obama Is No Socialist
October 28, 2008
by John Aloysius Farrell
U.S. News & World Report
We've been hearing some pretty hysterical things said by Barack Obama's critics about Obamanomics.
Socialist. Destroyer of wealth. Enemy of small business.
So, here's a primer on how Obama, if elected, will be "spreading the wealth around" in the next four years—and why he's far from a socialist radical.
And even, to a struggling but hopeful entrepreneur like myself (call me Jack the Writer), not cause for alarm.
Let's begin with some historical perspective. The United States responded to the last existential crisis faced by Americans—the triple-headed threat posed by Depression, Fascism, and Communism—by raising taxes and going into debt, big time, to pay for all those Sherman tanks and B-17 bombers and ICBMs we needed to defend ourselves. We paid down that debt, gleefully, with high income tax rates in the golden economic era, the Happy Days, that followed World War II.
But as the middle class grew larger in that time of postwar prosperity, more and more Americans crept into the top tax brackets that had, previously, been the exclusive domain of the filthy rich. John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson cut income taxes, bringing the top rate down from its confiscatory wartime high of 94 percent to 70 percent.
There things stood until the modern conservative era arrived, in part on the wings of a potent antitax movement. Ronald Reagan, in his first year in office, dropped that top rate to 50 percent.
The recession of 1982 and other events led him to tinker a bit—signing big tax hikes in his remaining years in office—but, after the tax reform bill of 1986 (which eliminated a lot of the loopholes by which companies and wealthy individuals dodged taxes), he left his successors with a 28 percent top rate and a worrisome federal budget deficit.
George H. W. Bush faced reality, broke his "Read my lips, no new taxes" promise, and signed a big tax bill during his presidency. Bill Clinton, still facing those Reagan deficits, listened to the bond market and raised taxes again in his first year in office. Both men paid a political cost, but these two tax hikes put the nation's finances on a sound basis, and the economy responded with roaring growth. The top rate was now at 39.6 percent.
As James Carville likes to ask, "What didn't you like about the Clinton years? The peace or the prosperity?"
Well, the Bush-Clinton tax hikes brought in so much money during the high-tech boom that the federal budget was balanced and the deficit erased. And in the fall of 2000, both Al Gore and George W. Bush offered big tax cuts if elected.
The Gore-Bush argument was a preview of the Obama-McCain dispute. Gore wanted to target tax cuts for the middle class; Bush urged a bigger, across-the-board tax cut that was tilted toward the wealthiest Americans.
Bush won. His tax cuts (which McCain voted against) passed Congress and contributed to a massive redistribution of riches in America. Wealth moved out of the bank accounts of working and middle-class families and into those of the wealthiest Americans. The top rate was down to 35 percent.
To cut taxes as deeply as they wished, without releasing a river of red ink on the books, the administration and its allies in Congress set time limits on almost all the Bush tax cuts, which will expire during the next presidency.
If Obama or McCain don't do anything, we'll all be facing much higher taxes. Not a good idea when the nation is trying to climb out of a recessionary slump. So both parties have promised tax cuts, and we the voters have a classic opportunity to gauge each party's priorities.
As he made the transition from maverick to Republican presidential hopeful, McCain concluded that the across-the-board tax cuts that he opposed back in 2001 now look pretty good, and he has vowed to permanently extend them, and cut various other taxes, at a cost of $3.7 trillion over the next 10 years.
Obama has responded with a Gore-like approach, which favors the middle class and leaves the top rate where it was during the years of Clinton prosperity—at 39.6 percent—lower than after Reagan's first big tax cut and ridiculously undeserving of the charges of "socialism" or "destroyer of wealth."
According to an analysis by the wizards at the Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, if Obama is elected, and his proposal is passed by Congress, 81 percent of American households will see their taxes go down, 8 percent will see no change, and the wealthiest 11 percent will pay higher tax bills.
Obama's plan will cost the Treasury $2.7 trillion—a trillion saved from what McCain hopes to provide the wealthy—over the next 10 years.
Under the Obama plan, the bottom 20 percent of households in America would get a tax cut of $567, and the middle 20 percent would see their taxes drop by $1,042. But the richest 1 percent of Americans (those earning an average of $1.5 million a year) would see taxes go up by $116,000.
Under the McCain plan, the bottom 20 percent would get a $19 tax cut, the middle fifth would get a tax cut of $319, and the wealthiest 1 percent would see their taxes go down by more than $40,000.
Neither plan qualifies as European-style socialism.
http://www.theroot.com/id/48479
by John Aloysius Farrell
U.S. News & World Report
We've been hearing some pretty hysterical things said by Barack Obama's critics about Obamanomics.
Socialist. Destroyer of wealth. Enemy of small business.
So, here's a primer on how Obama, if elected, will be "spreading the wealth around" in the next four years—and why he's far from a socialist radical.
And even, to a struggling but hopeful entrepreneur like myself (call me Jack the Writer), not cause for alarm.
Let's begin with some historical perspective. The United States responded to the last existential crisis faced by Americans—the triple-headed threat posed by Depression, Fascism, and Communism—by raising taxes and going into debt, big time, to pay for all those Sherman tanks and B-17 bombers and ICBMs we needed to defend ourselves. We paid down that debt, gleefully, with high income tax rates in the golden economic era, the Happy Days, that followed World War II.
But as the middle class grew larger in that time of postwar prosperity, more and more Americans crept into the top tax brackets that had, previously, been the exclusive domain of the filthy rich. John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson cut income taxes, bringing the top rate down from its confiscatory wartime high of 94 percent to 70 percent.
There things stood until the modern conservative era arrived, in part on the wings of a potent antitax movement. Ronald Reagan, in his first year in office, dropped that top rate to 50 percent.
The recession of 1982 and other events led him to tinker a bit—signing big tax hikes in his remaining years in office—but, after the tax reform bill of 1986 (which eliminated a lot of the loopholes by which companies and wealthy individuals dodged taxes), he left his successors with a 28 percent top rate and a worrisome federal budget deficit.
George H. W. Bush faced reality, broke his "Read my lips, no new taxes" promise, and signed a big tax bill during his presidency. Bill Clinton, still facing those Reagan deficits, listened to the bond market and raised taxes again in his first year in office. Both men paid a political cost, but these two tax hikes put the nation's finances on a sound basis, and the economy responded with roaring growth. The top rate was now at 39.6 percent.
As James Carville likes to ask, "What didn't you like about the Clinton years? The peace or the prosperity?"
Well, the Bush-Clinton tax hikes brought in so much money during the high-tech boom that the federal budget was balanced and the deficit erased. And in the fall of 2000, both Al Gore and George W. Bush offered big tax cuts if elected.
The Gore-Bush argument was a preview of the Obama-McCain dispute. Gore wanted to target tax cuts for the middle class; Bush urged a bigger, across-the-board tax cut that was tilted toward the wealthiest Americans.
Bush won. His tax cuts (which McCain voted against) passed Congress and contributed to a massive redistribution of riches in America. Wealth moved out of the bank accounts of working and middle-class families and into those of the wealthiest Americans. The top rate was down to 35 percent.
To cut taxes as deeply as they wished, without releasing a river of red ink on the books, the administration and its allies in Congress set time limits on almost all the Bush tax cuts, which will expire during the next presidency.
If Obama or McCain don't do anything, we'll all be facing much higher taxes. Not a good idea when the nation is trying to climb out of a recessionary slump. So both parties have promised tax cuts, and we the voters have a classic opportunity to gauge each party's priorities.
As he made the transition from maverick to Republican presidential hopeful, McCain concluded that the across-the-board tax cuts that he opposed back in 2001 now look pretty good, and he has vowed to permanently extend them, and cut various other taxes, at a cost of $3.7 trillion over the next 10 years.
Obama has responded with a Gore-like approach, which favors the middle class and leaves the top rate where it was during the years of Clinton prosperity—at 39.6 percent—lower than after Reagan's first big tax cut and ridiculously undeserving of the charges of "socialism" or "destroyer of wealth."
According to an analysis by the wizards at the Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, if Obama is elected, and his proposal is passed by Congress, 81 percent of American households will see their taxes go down, 8 percent will see no change, and the wealthiest 11 percent will pay higher tax bills.
Obama's plan will cost the Treasury $2.7 trillion—a trillion saved from what McCain hopes to provide the wealthy—over the next 10 years.
Under the Obama plan, the bottom 20 percent of households in America would get a tax cut of $567, and the middle 20 percent would see their taxes drop by $1,042. But the richest 1 percent of Americans (those earning an average of $1.5 million a year) would see taxes go up by $116,000.
Under the McCain plan, the bottom 20 percent would get a $19 tax cut, the middle fifth would get a tax cut of $319, and the wealthiest 1 percent would see their taxes go down by more than $40,000.
Neither plan qualifies as European-style socialism.
http://www.theroot.com/id/48479
All,
I thought this piece was hilarious, disturbing...and right on target...
Kofi
Will White People Riot?
Ridiculous question? Then stop asking it about black people.
by Wendi C. Thomas
TheRoot.com
Oct. 20, 2008--"Would black people riot if Sen. Barack Obama didn't win the election?" That was the question a white man in Memphis recently asked a racial reconciliation group with which I am involved.
After five years of being a columnist for the daily paper in Memphis, I wasn't surprised by the absurdity of his query. Many whites still labor under the illusion that black folk act en masse and that if you ask the right one, you can get the official position of some 40 million people. If a few of us get angry, that logic allows, it must surely result in a riot.
Riot because we didn't get our way? Please. Black people have more than their share of experience with disappointment and dashed dreams. (See: King, Martin Luther; Evers, Medgar; Chaney, James.) Matter of fact, I'd go so far as to say we're experts in making the best out of a losing hand.
The reply to the curious white gentleman: "No! There is no reason to believe black people will riot if Obama does not win."
But soon after getting this man's e-mail, I started to wonder if he was on to something, if he had noticed what I had: a seething, barely constrained, ugly anger and frustration that makes good riot fuel. The kind of anger that prompts people to shout "Kill him!" and "Off with his head!" at rallies. The kind of hatefulness that would prompt a man to bring a stuffed monkey with an "Obama" sticker on the toy's head to a campaign event.
That kind of group-fueled nastiness must surely beg the question: Will white people riot if Obama wins?
Not all white people are McCain supporters. (See caucuses, Iowa.) Not all black people are backing Obama. (See Negroes, self-loathing. Just joking.)
But there is a small but vocal segment of white Republicans who just might have an aneurysm if the next occupant of the White House is a black man.
If the polls are accurate—and Obama wins—will these few angry white people make good on their oral declarations? And will those who stood by them silent, join them? With dreams deferred, can angry whites do what Langston Hughes taught us—to let it fester like a sore, even to let sag like a heavy load? Or will the dream of a perfect streak of white men in the White House, if deferred, cause white people to explode?
Might they torch stores and overturn cars? Or worse, will angry whites take out their disgust on black people by, say, denying loans, or jobs or housing? Burned-out stores and cars, that's unsettling. But the damage angry whites could inflict if they really go off—that's scary.
Will angry white people riot if Barack Obama wins the election?
There may be some people who think this is an absurd question. I honestly don't know. But it is no more absurd than asking it about blacks.
Wendi C. Thomas is the metro columnist for The Commercial Appeal. She's been a writer or an editor for The Charlotte Observer, The (Nashville) Tennessean and The Indianapolis Star. Among her many journalism awards is her 2008 induction into the Scripps Howard Hall of Fame for her opinion writing.
© TheRoot.com
I thought this piece was hilarious, disturbing...and right on target...
Kofi
Will White People Riot?
Ridiculous question? Then stop asking it about black people.
by Wendi C. Thomas
TheRoot.com
Oct. 20, 2008--"Would black people riot if Sen. Barack Obama didn't win the election?" That was the question a white man in Memphis recently asked a racial reconciliation group with which I am involved.
After five years of being a columnist for the daily paper in Memphis, I wasn't surprised by the absurdity of his query. Many whites still labor under the illusion that black folk act en masse and that if you ask the right one, you can get the official position of some 40 million people. If a few of us get angry, that logic allows, it must surely result in a riot.
Riot because we didn't get our way? Please. Black people have more than their share of experience with disappointment and dashed dreams. (See: King, Martin Luther; Evers, Medgar; Chaney, James.) Matter of fact, I'd go so far as to say we're experts in making the best out of a losing hand.
The reply to the curious white gentleman: "No! There is no reason to believe black people will riot if Obama does not win."
But soon after getting this man's e-mail, I started to wonder if he was on to something, if he had noticed what I had: a seething, barely constrained, ugly anger and frustration that makes good riot fuel. The kind of anger that prompts people to shout "Kill him!" and "Off with his head!" at rallies. The kind of hatefulness that would prompt a man to bring a stuffed monkey with an "Obama" sticker on the toy's head to a campaign event.
That kind of group-fueled nastiness must surely beg the question: Will white people riot if Obama wins?
Not all white people are McCain supporters. (See caucuses, Iowa.) Not all black people are backing Obama. (See Negroes, self-loathing. Just joking.)
But there is a small but vocal segment of white Republicans who just might have an aneurysm if the next occupant of the White House is a black man.
If the polls are accurate—and Obama wins—will these few angry white people make good on their oral declarations? And will those who stood by them silent, join them? With dreams deferred, can angry whites do what Langston Hughes taught us—to let it fester like a sore, even to let sag like a heavy load? Or will the dream of a perfect streak of white men in the White House, if deferred, cause white people to explode?
Might they torch stores and overturn cars? Or worse, will angry whites take out their disgust on black people by, say, denying loans, or jobs or housing? Burned-out stores and cars, that's unsettling. But the damage angry whites could inflict if they really go off—that's scary.
Will angry white people riot if Barack Obama wins the election?
There may be some people who think this is an absurd question. I honestly don't know. But it is no more absurd than asking it about blacks.
Wendi C. Thomas is the metro columnist for The Commercial Appeal. She's been a writer or an editor for The Charlotte Observer, The (Nashville) Tennessean and The Indianapolis Star. Among her many journalism awards is her 2008 induction into the Scripps Howard Hall of Fame for her opinion writing.
© TheRoot.com
