Image
WarrenOatesLives
Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters —the black protesters — spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn’t like were enforced by the government? Would these protester — these black protesters with guns — be seen as brave defenders of the Second Amendment, or would they be viewed by most whites as a danger to the republic? What if they were Arab-Americans? Because, after all, that’s what happened recently when white gun enthusiasts descended upon the nation’s capital, arms in hand, and verbally announced their readiness to make war on the country’s political leaders if the need arose.
  1. groups:
    Entertainment,   Politics,   Comedy,   Not News
  2. tags:
    tea party Taxes Race Black 9 more
  3.     
    |

9 comments // What if the Tea Party was black?

  • JohnA
  • bailey78
  • ozoneocean
    • -1
      ozoneocean  
    • Good hypothetical. It really makes you realise just how extraordinarily tolerant people have been of the extremist views of the Tea Party activists.
      You're right- if it was any other group they'd be viewed as an immediate and dangerous threat to national security, but because these people are right-wing, mostly white, and middle-class, they can get away with things no one else can.

    • 2 years ago
  • CarlosBobthe3rd
  • ozoneocean
    • -2
      ozoneocean  
    • CarlosBobthe3rd:

      I think the real point of the vid is that right wing nut jobs can come from any ethic background.
      Yes, it doesn't matter what political party you're behind, but in the US the people who support oppression of minority groups, the poor, and the disenfranchised are over-represented on the right.

      The term "freedom" in an American political context has been highly subverted. Its use in this song is typical. The political meaning of the term is very much at odds with its dictionary meaning.

    • 2 years ago
  • bailey78
  • Varex_Sythe
    • 0
      Varex_Sythe  
    • "Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition."

      So wait a second, protesters who are white are descending upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia armed with AK047's, assorted handguns, and ammunition?

      Also, to put a stopper in that "What If?" mentality that should only be approached by Marvel comics, I pose a question to your question. If these white protestors have such a legitimate cause, why are there so few United States citizens of ethnically different backgrounds joining them?

    • 2 years ago
  • Naumadd
    • -1
      Naumadd  
    • I can only speak for myself - black or white or red or purple - my reaction is the same. I wish to hear your views and give them reasonable consideration but I will not be bullied or allow others to be bullied into giving you what you want. You win the day through fact and good reason - or you go home.

      A man carrying a gun isn't a criminal. A man threatening revolution and possible armed conflict isn't a criminal. A man threatening war isn't a criminal. Threats are only threats. True, one can terrorize others without actually lifting a finger - traditional religions have made good use of that fact, but even terrorizing talk is still within the lines of civility.

      A man who crosses the line of mere threat to genuinely impose his views through physical violence and coercion is a criminal - whether that man is a private citizen or a government thug.

      In any genuine civilization, individuals refuse to allow violence of any kind in their relationships with one another. An angry armed man has not yet abandoned reason but, of course, he is very close to it.

      He ought not be treated as a criminal until he, in fact, has committed an act of barbarism. To treat threats as equal to actual savagery is to become a savage oneself.

    • 2 years ago
  • WarrenOatesLives
    • -1
      WarrenOatesLives  
    • Naumadd:

      "A man carrying a gun isn't a criminal. A man threatening revolution and possible armed conflict isn't a criminal. A man threatening war isn't a criminal. Threats are only threats. "

      The point is what you say is only true for whites in this country. A black man carrying a gun and advocating revolution will be stopped by the authorities. That is a fact. That is what the article is pointing out.

    • 2 years ago
more from Comedy:

top videos