Drawing Lines

Author’s Note: Yes, I read Rick’s piece this morning. Yes, it covers some of the same ground. But there are enough differences that I’m not willing to simply toss the whole thing in the scrap heap and mutter imprecations about Rick and his dubious parentage and ongoing habit of plagiarizing me before I even write something. Not this time, chum…

Ah, the NAACP. Such a simple, elegant notion. A remarkably clear, uncomplicated organization — their very name is their mission statement. “The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.” That’s all you need to know — they’re an association, with affiliates across the nation, whose goal is improving the lot of a certain group of people who, historically, have been assailed, exploited, repressed, and beaten down. A heretical notion once, now pretty much self-evident.

And that group? While the name itself has been remarkably fluid, the subjects have not. Colored people, Afro-Americans, Blacks, African-Americans, Negros — a rose by any other name.

(An aside: I don’t care for most of those terms. I haven’t been able to take “colored” seriously since “Dr. Detroit,” when a black woman objected to the term by saying “Nobody colored me, I was born this way!” I have a bias against “African American” or “Afro-American” because I don’t like “American” being hyphenated, a lot of those going by the term have only tangential ties to Africa, and a lot of others who do have closer ties to the continent don’t qualify by being white or Arabic. And black? Most “black” people aren’t any more “black” that I am “white:” they’re shades of brown, while I’m pinkish-tan. But whatever. I’m going to stick with “black” unless I have a reason to use another.)

But that simple mission statement has “evolved” to include a political definition. Simply having enough of the right genes isn’t enough to rouse the NAACP’s interest. No, you have to be on the right side (or, at least, not on the wrong side) of certain political interests.

Case in point: Kenneth Gladney, the (negro/colored/Afro-American/African-American/black) Tea Party activist who was beaten by (alleged) union thugs at a protest.

Now, I could make a case for the NAACP not wanting to get involved in his case. Gladney, it appears, was not targeted on the basis of his race, but his political beliefs. There is no racial element in his situation. All they had to say was that they were observing the case, that they were troubled at the violence, but didn’t see where it was part of their official mission.

That would have been fine. But that wasn’t what they had to say.

Back in the day, we used to call someone like that, and I want to remind you, uh, when this incident occurred, I was really struck by a front page picture of this guy, which we called, a Negro, i mean that we call him a Negro in the fact that he works for not for our people but against our people. In the old days, we call him an Uncle Tom. I just gotta say that.

On the basis of race and race alone, purely as a question of racial identity, Mr. Gladney has more right to call himself “black” than President Obama, whose mother was white. But the NAACP is pretty much married to Obama, and considers him far more worthy of their support than Mr. Gladney.

By what basis is this distinction drawn? On what scale is someone like President Obama more “black” than Kenneth Gladney?

Why, the political one, of course.

The NAACP has, for decades, tied itself to the Democratic Party. They are unabashed liberals and progressives, and they have been a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democrats for a long, long time. That became glaringly obvious during the 2000 campaign and following Bush administration — the NAACP (a nominally non-partisan group) ran ads against him and spent years denouncing and attacking him and his administration.

Politics trumps race. Remember that.

It also trumps sex.

Let’s look at some people who have been hailed by the feminist movement as heroes and champions.

Bill Clinton: chronic philanderer. Serial philanderer. Sexual harasser. Accused rapist.

Al Gore: Alleged “sex-crazed poodle.”

John Kerry: Highly successful gigolo.

John Edwards: Cheated on sick wife, denied parentage of child.

On the other hand, when a woman was being (and still is being) attacked, largely on the basis of her being a woman, that’s different. Because she’s not a “real woman.”

That’s right. Men who have a history of treating women like useful objects, then discarding them, are more entitled to the support of feminists than someone who actually has the proper genetics and plumbing and accoutrements (hell, she conceived and bore five children, albeit with the assistance of a man) of a woman.

Where were the feminists when she was greeted by protesters wearing “Sarah Palin Is A Cunt” T-Shirts? It doesn’t get more objectionable or objectifying than that. It’s reducing her to… well, the one thing that the above-mentioned feminist heroes seem to care about almost exclusively.

Politics trumps sex.

So, remember those lessons. If you are a black person or a woman who’s run into trouble, make certain that you don’t have any conservative credentials. Because the very people who hold themselves up as champions of your race and/or sex will not hesitate to side with your oppressors and throw you under the bus.

And if, in the process, they lose their moral standing, so be it. No one who “matters” will even notice.

Decimated
"Why not launch a big, dancing middle finger directed toward the agents of apathy and malevolence"