The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jul 18, 2010 15:06:55 GMT -5
I can't find the study right now, but a study of the war related anti-LBJ protest votes in the New Hampshire primary showed exactly that.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 18, 2010 15:47:31 GMT -5
Maybe your can't find study is much more informative than living through the era.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 18, 2010 15:54:25 GMT -5
Stig, you also said I was the only one talking about racism on this thread (if I read your post correctly). Here's a quote from Ambassador in this thread.
"I can't speak for everyone, but the concerns that I am raising about racism in the Tea Party arise from the words of one of its national leaders, among other things. He apparently realized that he was in error and removed some of the more objectionable statements from his national site. That is not a "single bad apple" issue - it is a problem they have at all levels. I've made my viewpoints about the signs and other literature that these groups display at their rallies. I find it inappropriate."
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jul 18, 2010 16:43:57 GMT -5
Maybe your can't find study is much more informative than living through the era. A lot of time people misinterpret their own times. We may be doing that right now with the Tea Partiers and the election this November. As for 1968, the study I'm talking about doesn't appear to be online, but it's referenced in this article from Pew: pewresearch.org/pubs/1379/polling-history-influence-policymaking-politics"Eugene McCarthy's strong showing in the 1968 New Hampshire primary was interpreted as a manifestation of antiwar sentiment; University of Michigan surveys at the time found that hawks outnumbered doves among McCarthy's supporters."
|
|
hoyaclap
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 202
|
Post by hoyaclap on Jul 18, 2010 17:28:44 GMT -5
I have never cared much for the take of the NAACP in recent years. I am encouraged by some of their new leadership, but it's clear they are fighting a losing battle to remain relevant. I felt that their Tea Party resolution was poorly timed, and needless, but at the core, not incorrect. But I still think its foolish because it is unusual that an organization like the NAACP can level a charge of racism short of the most apparent that doesn't draw the ire of the population sensitive to such accusations.
I think its important that groups like NAACP clearly define what constitutes racism to them, because otherwise it is too ambiguous and opens them up to criticism. Calling Barack Obama a socialist or, depicting him as the joker, or comparing him to Hitler may have varying levels of distaste, but they are not racist. Saying that Obama is seeking White slavery may be race baiting, but it's not truly racism. Even claiming he's born in Kenya, Indonesia or what have you isn't racist as much as delusional. However, depicting POTUS as a witchdoctor, a pimp, or hurling racial epithets are undoubtedly racist.
I am not a member of the NAACP, nor do I intend to ever join, but I share their desire to snuff out racism wherever it exists. I'm not sure if the Tea Party deserves to be singled out, but there are racists amongst their ranks. There are racists among the ranks of organizations across the spectrum.
It's just as much in the interest of the Tea Party to aggressively fend off charges of racism and attack the NAACP as it may have been for the NAACP to pass this resolution. However, the Tea Party is a movement rooted in negativity. Guilt by association exists in politics. It's naive to to think that such anger and frustration doesn't lend itself to attract people with racist inclinations. That may not be the intention or desire, but if they don't disavow racism in their ranks, racist signs at their rallies, racist blogs and tweets under their banner, they own it.
Hell, we have a lower standard of blame for opposing fans and athletic departments. What would we say if a rival Big East school had fans chanting over the top slogans or disrespectful tasteless signs at our kids? what if the only response was to state at the beginning of each game that these chants and signs are not permitted, but they don't challenge rule breakers game after game after game? The Carrier Dome holds 30k plus, what if there were a couple dozen people holding up signs comparing our players to gang members or apes without recourse? yea that could be a minute sample of Syr fans (even within the confines of that arena). What if those signs end up on TV? Is it good enough for Syracuse to just say that its only a few people and to calm down? would it be appropriate for their fans and administration to point at signs from other schools and say its par for the course? or to say that they have black players like we do, so they can't be racist or offensive?
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,443
|
Post by TC on Jul 18, 2010 18:24:51 GMT -5
"Eugene McCarthy's strong showing in the 1968 New Hampshire primary was interpreted as a manifestation of antiwar sentiment; University of Michigan surveys at the time found that hawks outnumbered doves among McCarthy's supporters." I don't think you can take those tea leaves nationally - New Hampshirites always want to blow things up.
|
|