Adventures In Tweeting Pt I : Black Like Me

The racial component in socio-political discourse has been amplified or minimized for a number of reasons. For the most part, liberals/progressives find themselves speaking about race in politics and society as a direct result of statements made by conservatives. A good example would be O'Reilly's shock and awe that a black restaurant in Harlem was just as pleasant as any other eatery that he may find himself in. Though he continues to deny that he ever said this, insisting his context had been distorted, it is a perfect example of conservatives using race as a quantifier for their belief structure.

Conservatives too often use race in socio-political discourse in order to show that those within a minority are often inferior, that they have a hidden agenda that is ultimately anti-American, or to bait those with whom they disagree with. It’s become more prevalent because of the fact that Obama is black. In their minds they think that because we now have a black President that they are free to use racially charged language. They seem to be operating under the assumption that racial animus no longer exists, so their words – no matter how harmful – are validated.

Recently I responded to a tweet posted by someone using the AlinskyDefeater name:



And even though this “connection” between Ayers and Obama was completely overblown from the jump, our intrepid AlinskyDefeater was hell-bent on convince his followers that there was some secret plot that Obama was about to unfold upon us all.

After responding that this link between Ayers and Obama had been seriously distorted, that a few context-shredded lines from a fire-and-brimstone preacher don’t reveal to us that Obama is some evil force that is out to destroy America, I was labeled a racist:






But it apparently wasn’t enough to show that there was absolutely no rationale that could be used to validate this claim being leveled against me. Ultimately, I was no longer just a racist, but a “black racist”:



This is where we come back to the way in which reactionary conservatives use race/racism as a central theme in many of their arguments against Obama and for conservative policies. But there was one problem that our intrepid AlinskyDefeater didn’t bank on – I’m not black.



All one has to do is take a look at my Facebook profile and it becomes quite clear that I am not black at all. So why was this person so eager to label me “black”? The answer is quite obvious.

I was defending Obama against a specious and fact free attack, so in the mind of a fringe conservative that HAS to mean that I am black. To them, this is the only possible reason that someone, that anyone, would stand up against claims that they feel are grounded in reality when all they are are poorly constructed conspiracies designed to divide along racial lines. By and large, reactionary conservatives like this person, like Limbaugh, like Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly can't seem to grasp that being black isn't a disorder, isn't a state of being that means that you HAVE to act in a certain way. Conversely, simply because a person is white it doesn't mean they have to act a certain way. The problem comes in when people like AlinskyDefeator make assumptions.

Of course, this is not to say that our intrepid AlinskyDefeater is racist, but that they are sorely misinformed and should exercise at least an ounce of intellectual honesty when attempting to debate someone. However, seeing as how this person wants to “defeat” Alinsky while praising Glenn Beck for utilizing his “tactics”, I'm afraid that that’s going to be a little too much to ask.

Who The Fuck Is This Guy?

I too often display my ignorance without even realizing it. I'm not proud of this fact, but it is true.

However, I will not fall prey to a massive bout of hubris and claim that I have my "finger on the pulse", that I have an unflinching knowledge of all the nuances and tangenticals of soci-political life.

So, confronted with a caricature of William Ayers during the Presidential Election cycle, I started to wonder - who is this man?

If you were to believe people like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, he roamed the American landscape with his associates burning, bombing, and rioting with no clear motive.

There was just enough information given to make you say, what?

Rather tha eat what you are being served, why not see what the man himself has to say:

IN the recently concluded presidential race, I was unwillingly thrust upon the stage and asked to play a role in a profoundly dishonest drama. I refused, and here’s why.

I was cast in the “unrepentant terrorist” role; I felt at times like the enemy projected onto a large screen in the “Two Minutes Hate” scene from George Orwell’s “1984,” when the faithful gathered in a frenzy of fear and loathing.

With the mainstream news media and the blogosphere caught in the pre-election excitement, I saw no viable path to a rational discussion. Rather than step clumsily into the sound-bite culture, I turned away whenever the microphones were thrust into my face. I sat it out.

I never killed or injured anyone. I did join the civil rights movement in the mid-1960s, and later resisted the draft and was arrested in nonviolent demonstrations. I became a full-time antiwar organizer for Students for a Democratic Society. In 1970, I co-founded the Weather Underground, an organization that was created after an accidental explosion that claimed the lives of three of our comrades in Greenwich Village. The Weather Underground went on to take responsibility for placing several small bombs in empty offices — the ones at the Pentagon and the United States Capitol were the most notorious — as an illegal and unpopular war consumed the nation.

Read more of Ayers Op-Ed at The New York Times.

Is Ayers a man to be admired, respected, shunned, stoned, ignored? Who truly knows. The important thing is to decide for yourself.

The William Ayers Interview

Click here to start the interview.

It's interesting how some aren't so willing to accept the fact that Ayers has never spoken about the "he's friends with Obama" meme.

In point of fact, I don't agree with what Ayers has done. Revolutionary action is often times required to bring about a change that an entire nation screams for. But I'm not so sure that stating what The Weather Underground was doing can be seen as a parallel to what was being done when this country was attempting to gain it's independance - which has been postulated.

Regardless of your thoughts on the man, the primary focus that has been placed on Ayers and Obama is this alleged "friendship" that the two shared. Many have been willing to jump in and claim that they know, without equivocation, that Obama and Ayers were "friends", that they have a "history".

Those that have screamed this the loudest, the most visible of conservatives, surely realize that they were - and still are - attempting to shove the square peg into the round hole. They know that there is a difference between the "working relationship" - as mild as Obama's and Ayres more than likely was - and a "social relationship".

When tackling any association, and depending on how you want your intended audience to react, you have to opperate within a specific set of abstracts. Much in the way Fox"News" uses the "Fair and Balanced" slogan, it's nothing more than that, a slogan. When discussing Obama and Ayers, all you have to do is say that they served on "boards" together and that they were friendly. You don't have to be specific. Just shout that Williams Ayres is a terrorist and that he is friends with Obama. And keep shouting it. This is what has been done.

The larger point is to just watch the interview and see what Ayers has to say. You don't have to agree with him, just listen to his side of the story.