Sister Toldjah does some Googling and finds a not unsurprising discrepency in media coverage of two concommitant racially-charged incidents involving elected officials. Interestingly, Rangel, it should be pointed out, is a much higher profile figure—he’s been a proponent of re-establishing the draft (though, presumably, only because he knows such a movement is destined to fail), and is a regular on the political chat shows—whereas this is the first I’ve heard of Stacey Campfield.
So factor that into the analysis as well.
Well, I don’t see why the MSM should bother covering what Rangel said, since we all know that black people can’t be racists.
And in all of the conversation about “Bull” Connor on the blogs, etc., I’ve still not seen anyone identify him as what he was . . . A DEMOCRAT ELECTED OFFICIAL. Kind of irritating to be a Republican and be smeared as being just as evil as the worst Democrat.
I see the media attempting a double standard, but I don’t think they’re doing their “civil rights” agenda any favors by promoting either story. However it’s spun, the Stacey Campbell story raises the issue of the legitimacy of a race-based, exclusory “Black Caucus” and the issue of whether Rev. King’s words “belong” to black people. Advocates of those positions are revealed as apologists for black racism.
All kidding aside, Campfield said something mind-bendingly stupid:
Unless, perhaps, he was thinking of this episode of Mr. Show.
Rep. Stacey Campfield blogs here
The Campfield story is another example of an issue where the press reporting it had an obvioius choice on how to spin it, and chose to steer hard left. They could have selectively quoted Campfield (as they do Cindy Sheehan) as a seeker of truth, a defender of equality, a warrior against hypocrisy. They could have found supporting quotes from eminent scholars opposed to race essentialism. They could have challenged Black leaders on “how Black is Black enough?”
Instead, they presented Campfield’s most incendiary statements and closed the article with a dismissive, career-jeopardizing jab by a respected black man who called him a crazy racist.
Sean, that link really didn’t make much of a point. You saying that his statement about the Klan not banning members by race may be worth a little fact-check, though.
Sometime you should investigate the accounts of black Klan members. Pretty interesting, actually.
The Klan was not born as a racist organization. Some folks hijacked its name for their own purposes. The current “Klan” doesn’t bear the slightest resemblance to the original Ku Klux Klan–a fraternal order to which many notable historic figures belonged.
In all honesty, even the current Klan may be persuaded to accept a black member who was for whatever reason a true believer in the “purity and superiority of the white race,” but the CBC is pretty much exclusive, regardless of political and social persuasion–leaving itself exposed as just as racist (if not more so) than the Ku Klux Klan.
What’s hard to figure is why the two groups are on the one hand demonized, and on the other glorified, for essentially the same position on race.
TW: “last”
straw