Republican Racism Strikes Again

I have covered many amazingly disgusting examples of Republican racism and anti-Semitism over the years.

Not too long ago there was an idiot bar owner in Cobb Co. Georgia who made T-shirts with a picture of Curious George (registered trademark of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt) eating a banana with the caption "Obama '08." When confronted by some uppity civil rights groups the bar owner insisted he wasn't racist. From a Daily Kos article because the original newspaper article keeps crashing Firefox:

The T-shirts are being peddled by Marietta bar owner Mike Norman at his Mulligan's Bar and Grill in Cobb County. They show a picture of Curious Georgie peeling a banana, with the words "Obama '08" underneath.

...

Norman acknowledged the imagery's Jim Crow roots but said he sees nothing wrong with depicting a prominent African-American as a monkey.

Of course this fool got slapped down by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt for copyright infringement and generally being an a racist idiot:

Rick Blake, a spokesman for publisher Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, which owns Curious George, said Wednesday that the company didn't authorize the use of the character's image, but hasn't been in touch with anybody selling or manufacturing the shirts.

"We find it offensive and obviously utterly out of keeping with the value Curious George represents," Blake said. "We're monitoring the situation and weighing our options with respect to legal action."

Now we have another example of stupid, racist Republican "humor." The ill-named American Values and Focus on the Family Action Forum (a group which seems unAmerican and displays terrible values) sells "Obama Waffles" with several racial stereotypes. From this article:

Obama is portrayed with popping eyes and big, thick lips as he stares at a plate of waffles and smiles broadly.

Placing Obama in Arab-like headdress recalls the false rumor that he is a follower of Islam, though he is actually a Christian.

On the back of the box, Obama is depicted in stereotypical Mexican dress, including a sombrero, above a recipe for "Open Border Fiesta Waffles" that says it can serve "4 or more illegal aliens." The recipe includes a tip: "While waiting for these zesty treats to invade your home, why not learn a foreign language?"

Wow, insulting blacks, Muslims and Hispanics all in one shot. I guess the Republican Party has abandoned all attempts to reach out to the true diversity of America. I guess they have embraced intolerance wholeheartedly. What is with Republicans? How can they think this kind of adolescent racism is okay? This is a forum attended by the likes of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney and they are engaging in blatant racism.

And speaking of Republican Racism, here's an article from an Arizona blog that is apropos: McCain and the Race Card - The Corporate Media's Role. And let's remember McCain opposed the Martin Luther King, jr. holiday. For those who want to read more about Republican racism, I've discussed it here (from before Obama won the primary), and it is covered in Drew Westin's book The Political Brain with some pretty nasty examples.

To quote Drew Westen's book, The Political Brain:

Since the mid-1960's, the party of Lincoln has desecrated his memory. Republicans have opposed every effort to extend equal rights to anyone who isn't white. They have played the race card in every presidential election they have won since 1968. As long as Democrats don't turn racism into a character issue, Republicans will continue to use it as an instrument of political persuasion.

Remember Trent Lott's glowing, gushing, loving speech about Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential run. Remember, that Trent Lott was the LEADER of the Republican Senate, yet he said that had Strom Thurmond won the presidency in 1948, America wouldn't have the problems it has today.

What was the focus of Thurmond's run for presidency? His central platform was segregation, upholding the "right" of, in his words, "Southern People" to keep "niggers" out of "our theaters...swimming pools...homes and...churches." Trent Lott in 2002 was praising one of the most blatantly racist campaigns for president in the 20th century. (Note: remeber that Thurmond was a "Dixiecrat" who left the Democratic Party BECAUSE of the Democratic fight for Civil Rights, finding the Republican Party more accepting of his racism).

Then in 2006 there were two very instructive Senate races: Virginia and Tennessee. In Virginia, the Republican incumbent used a racial slur against a dark-skinned American and it blew up in his face. He lost. Democrats hit him hard for his open racism, and we now have Senator Jim Webb of Virginia instead of the racist Republican incumbent.

In Tennessee, racist Republican candidate Corker and the Republican Party ran an ad that implied his oponent, Henry Ford, jr. (a black) was having sex with white women. In it, they use the phrase, "Harold Ford...He's just not right."

A phrase that sounds suspiciously like "Harold Ford...He's just not white." And the truth is, neurologically our brains will interpret that phrase to mean "white." The pairing of the sex with white women, and the "he's just not white" line was clearly trying to play on the racism many voters might have deep down.

This ad, by the way, was crafted by Karl Rove.

And let's not forget the fact that Republicans claim Jews don't matter because they only make up 2% of the population. Then there is their blatant anti-Muslim stand. Then there have been countless racist remarks by Rep. Ed Butcher (R-MT) denigrating Native Americans.

I predicted that if Obama got the nomination republican racism would reach new lows. Seems that is coming through loud and clear to the American people. Republicans stand for racism and intolerance and it is about time for the American people to say, "enough is enough."


mole333's picture

| |


Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may link to webpages through the weblinks registry
  • Web and e-mail addresses are automatically converted into links.
  • Textual smileys will be replaced with graphical ones.
  • Easily link to terms in various wikis. For help, see interwiki.
  • Images can be added to this post.
More information about formatting options

Visit our sponsors

Upcoming events

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Buy it!


Visit our sponsors

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Google Ads

The Big Dialog


Who's online

There are currently 2 users and 1523 guests online.

Online users

Instant Congress

Don't know your Senators or US Representatives' phone numbers?
Enter your street address and zip code and find out right now.
Street number and name only:
Zip Code (5 digits):


Words to live by

To WILLIAM H. HERNDON, Esq. February 15, 1848.— LETTER TO WILLIAM H. HERNDON. WASHINGTON, February 15, 1848.

Dear William :

Your letter of the 29th January was received last night. Being exclusively a constitutional argument, I wish to submit some reflections upon it in the same spirit of kindness that I know actuates you. Let me first state what I understand to be your position. It is that if it shall become necessary to repel invasion, the President may, without violation of the Constitution, cross the line and invade the territory of another country and that whether such necessity exists in any given case the President is the sole judge.

Before going further consider well whether this is or is not your position. If it is, it is a position that neither the President himself, nor any friend of his, so far as I know, has ever taken. Their only positions are— first, that the soil was ours when the hostilities commenced ; and second, that whether it was rightfully ours or not, Congress had annexed it, and the President for that reason was bound to defend it; both of which are as clearly proved to be false in fact as you can prove that your house is mine. The soil was not ours, and Congress did not annex or attempt to annex it. But to return to your position. Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him Î You may say to him, " I see no probability of the British invading us "; but he will say to you, " Be silent: I see it, if you don't."

The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood. Write soon again.

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN.


— Abraham Lincoln (while a Congressman)


Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify