Skirting The Edge Of Racism

I was just called a racist jackass for correctly stating there were racial undertones to this piece I saw posted on Twitter.

The film Watermelon Man was about a white man insensitive to blacks who woke up one day to discover that he was turning black.

While unsurprising to many, it is ironic that America is waking up today to find out that the half-black man in the White House is nothing like the post-racial politician he made himself up to be during the 2008 campaign.

Obama speaks with unusual demographic frankness about his coalition in his appeal to "young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again."

And now, he gets to warm up the bus before running over his National Security Adviser for an anti-semitic joke, assuming the media doesn't grant him yet one more affirmative action pass. Well, at least he gets to sit in the driver's seat and not in the back. I suppose there's some progress in that!

After the speech, two participants suggested, in private conversations with the Forward, that Jones’ joke might have been inappropriate. After all, making jokes about greedy Jewish merchants can be seen at times as insensitive.

A prominent think-tank source who attended the event said the joke was “wrong in so many levels” and that it “demonstrated a lack of sensitivity.” The source also asked: “Can you imagine him telling a black joke at an event of African Americans?”

It's not difficult to see the race bating nature of this post as well as the racial undertones in the title alone - The Watermelon Man?

So, in response - and certainly not of a reflexive nature - I pointed out the racial nature of the post and when confronted with the "I know you are but what am I" ( The Pee-Wee Herman response ) I offered up the challenge for the self ascribed
conservativecowgirl to provide conclusive proof that I am, in point of fact, this "racist jackass".

Not that it bothers me in the least, as I've had just about any and every label leveled at me since I started blogging. But let's focus on Dan Riehl's post.

For starters, not only is the title of the film used indicative of one of the oldest and most widely recognized racial stereotypes, but the inference that Dan makes that America is waking up to see that Obama is "much blacker than we had first realized" is just as disgusting and makes no headway in the conservative chant of late that there is "no racism" within the movement.

Dan is likely echoing Fox"Nation" when comparing how he feels America should look at Obama while he makes a call to minorities ( and women ) to come together not only to better themselves but their country as well with the upcoming elections.

It appears that it was Dan's intent to get someone "non-white" to respond to this. I, however, am not, but could easily see that this wasn't some idle comment within the broader context of the piece.

Dan follows with this with a two-fer - the obligatory "affirmative action" jab coupled with a "hey buddy, now you can sit up front" schtick. Not only that, but Riehl likely realizes that conservatives have convinced themselves that Obama care little to nothing about Isreal ( as evidenced by the continuing slams against Obama and his relationships with Netanyahu ) and his inference that Obama is going to somehow prove he is pro-Isreal by tossing his National Security advisor under the proverbial "bus".

Regardless of what Obama does, whether he chastises that man for the poor and uncalled for slur or he does nothing, conservatives will either claim that he's willing to kill his own kind or - as is now - that he cares nothing about Isreal. It's a lose/lose.

Dan concludes his piece with a standard point of view that conservatives like to use - the "what if" option. It's much better to never respond to such claims simply because they never happened. But that doesn't mean that it's already happened in the mind of a conservative willing to use racial animus to make themselves look clever amongst their peers.

In the end, I'm not surprised at all by this, nor am I surprised by the response that my clear and honest statement brought. It's a sign of a rank amateur to use racially charged and divisive rhetoric within a piece, and just patently ignorant to use it in one that has no broader context other than to get as close to using the dreaded "n-bomb" without coming out and saying it.