Skip to main content

View Diary: THE RAPE CARD (36 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There are more videos (0+ / 0-)

    But I have to go work right now. You can clearly see the scene there, there were cameras everywhere. It's the U.S. Capitol during a major vote for Chrissakes.

    Do I believe that it's unlikely that with thousands of "angry" people all around nobody said anything offensive? Yes, of course.

    But the point of this dispute is the "race card". Why do people seem to want to scour the landscape for any sign of racism? Do you really think that it's of no benefit to the alleged victims of racism to prove an instance of it?

    If it's true that in a crowd of hundreds of "angry" people somewhere in the back of the crowd, inaudible to all press, and at the one point in their famous stroll that happened to elude the cameras, somebody shouted the n-word at them, does that one person's lone act warrant the thousands of pages of press that have been written about it?

    People do pull the "race card" when it benefits them. It's as simple as that. That does not in any way discount the fact that a lot of actual racism doesn't also occur. They're two independent variables that don't necessarily even relate to each other.

    •  Not Sure (0+ / 0-)

      how this benefits them.  John Lewis, if you know his history, has suffered beatings because of the color of his skin.  They were voting for healthcare, regardless of what people said.  So, by claiming they were called the "N" word seems of no benefit to them.  And I'm sure they knew cameras and microphones were around.

      And yes, one person's lone act can warrant thousands of pages of press.  Just depends on what you think is important.

      •  It benefits Democrats to portray the opposition (0+ / 0-)

        to Obama and the Democratic agenda as being motivated by racism. Nobody wants to be seen as or associated with racists, so if everyone who opposes Obama and the Democrats is a racist, then fewer people will be willing to do so. Of course it's of benefit to them.

        And particularly so in the context of being able to tie through John Lewis opposition to health care, which is controversial, with opposition to civil rights, which is not.

        A "lone person" at a rally should not be able to define the nature of the rally. That would allow for all kinds of things that we don't want: anarchists could define peaceful demonstrations; anti-Semites could define protests against Israeli policy; LaRouchites could define every rally that every occurs for any cause; dogmatic sectarian leftists could define all anti-war rallies; and on and on.

        The lone person at a rally could very well not even be an authentic member of the group; they may just be an agent provocateur who only intends to disrupt and obscure the message of the group.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site