Upon seeing the poster held by racist Tea Party founder Dale Robertson, I sent this message to the WV chapter of the Tea Party to see if they would defend the usage of that loaded word.
Here is my original message:
I saw a picture of Tea Part founder Dale Robertson holding a sign. He spelled it 'niggar' and I thought it was 'nigger.' if i'm making my own signs what way should i use
I received two responses, and they didn't fail to entertain--hell, some of his closest friends, evidently, are black people:
Here’s the first, from Dale Robertson himself:
I don't encourage anyone to use that sign. It is easily manipulated as a racist statement. It is not a racist statement but a political statement. Due to the obvious heated response and new laws that make it hate speech and a crime, it is not recommended to use. Below is my comment of the reason for this given much interest and I provide some thoughts to who I am.
Dale
P.S. I have an even amount of white, black and hispanic friends. I was blessed with a multi-cultural school and never viewed my classmates through the lens of hatred or racism, but look at each other as a brother or sister. It is the wicked who are quick to accuse the innocent. The Tea Party is not about enslaving people, but freeing people. Don't let seats of powers to polarize any issue, Their purpose is to divide to enslave, my purpose is to unite and free. Division is the polar opposite of unity. I don't hate black people for being black, nor do I expect a black person hating me because I'm white. I abhor racism in any aspect. This is a political statement about Americans, in particularly myself.
If we quit hating then we can listen to reason and once again have a moral compass. The purpose of this info was from a political party whose people stole over $500K and consequently, I lost my home over their criminal activities. I don't hate them and tried many times to ask them to stop. The RNC has been informed and continues to turn a blind eye to their criminal activities, because it marginalizes the message of the Tea Party so they can take ownership of it. Should I yield to the RNC and allow them to continue to pull the wool over everyone's eyes? What say you?
Then I received a second message—not sure if he didn’t think I got the first one or not. Part of it is cut 'n pasted from the former, so he evidently has a boiler-plate message ready to go for his defense of his indefensible word usage:
Dear Dan,
First of all I?m an enemy of both political parties. The submission was from a Republican operative who stole over $500K from the Tea Party Movement. The RNC knows who they are and chooses to enjoy the spoils of what I started. I?m not racist, but you would have to take the time to know me to know that.
It is easy to take the mob mentality and make accusations. This comment was taken from Webster Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/... from Ron Dellums a Liberal/Socialist Democrat. It means politically unrepresented. However, we are so interested in hating that we can?t see this is not referring to a person, but Americans in general. In particularly, myself.
I adhere to Dr. Martin Luther King quote, ?Do not judge a man by the depth of his skin, but by the depth of his character.? I abhor racism. However, the political elite will use any method to divide to gain power. Go ahead call me racist, but that is a lie. I expect that my daughter who dates black men, will marry one. I do not look at his color, but his character.
The misspelling was intentional for the Educational Elite, who are vexed and gladly jump into the face of the less fortunate to proclaim we are idiots. Need I say more. We can continue to be manipulated by hate and lose our moral compass or rise above it and begin to listen to one another. We must stop hating and start listening to provide real solutions to our problems.
Lengthy and head-achy, I know. In that very Merriam-Webster definition he chooses to cite, it at first appeared to me that he evidently looked over the part wherein it discusses how that word is perhaps the most loaded and incendiary word in our vocabulary. But, of course, he uses it on purpose as a distraction.
He didn't warn me not to use that word, the most divisive word in our culture (even though he claims that "must stop hating"); he warned me not to use the 'poster.' And frankly, even if we take out our brains and grind them up (perhaps in this nifty little coffee grinder I just purchased), and we decide to buy his bogus argument, the fact is, using that word is just a stupid tactic. It's poor rhetoric--if he's really claiming that he's trying to get a message across the aisle, then he's doing it very poorly. His very choice in words reveals what he must, at heart, realize:
They have no argument. They have no case, otherwise people of intelligence, (the 'educational elite'. For more on this view of 'us', check out Charles Pierce's fantastic Esquire piece and look for the money quote: "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture.") would have perhaps, you know, listened at some point. But since they have no actual argument to make, they use intentionally divisive words or bring firearms to a presidential parade. As we've become use to, they use tantrums to replace debate.
Their childishness is their biggest strength, and the sum total of their argument. It's not only seen in Robertson's lack of a clearly articulated point of view, but it's showcased each sunday when the Michelle Bachman's and Dick Cheney's of the world are given the pulpit.
And never forget, as he states: "The Tea Party is about...freeing people." Evidently he forgot to add: "...from thought."