That any conservatives would today praise MLK is evidence of the failure of our school system to teach him accurately, or the utter venality of those conservatives. Not ONE movement conservative supported King while he was alive. They detested him...
(a brief thread)
2/ The National Review — the main organ of the movement — condemned the civil rights movement he led and actually claimed “crazed Negroes” might have bombed the 16th St Baptist church in B’ham themselves, just to cast aspersions on sweet little segregationist whites...
3/ No conservatives or right wingers marched with him. And please, don’t say “but Charlton Heston!” That was actually when Heston was a liberal, so...
4/ Just once I would love one of these conservatives to say, ya know, our side was wrong back then, whether represented by southern democrats or western republicans (Goldwater, Reagan, etc). “We should have listened to what progressive and left voices were saying...”
5/ ...but they cannot bring themselves to say it; to admit that at the defining moment (to that point) in American history, they were on the wrong side. Because to admit it would be to open themselves to the criticism that they still are...
6/They have to elide the truth because deep down they know MLK would support BLM, for instance. If you don’t believe me, ask his children, who know quite a bit better than most. John Lewis, who knew him better than any conservative supported BLM and knew King would have as well..
7/ The right, by virtue of siding w/segregationists in the 50s and 60s, have forever forfeited their right to be taken seriously on anything of substance again. They are a movement to defend and protect white male power and dominance. Always have been, always will be
END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ I’m not one for ‘told ya so’s but in 1989 when David Duke won the state House seat in Louisiana, some of us said this was an inflection point in American politics. This wasn’t just the logical result of Reaganesque racial dog whistling. It was something different (a thread)...
2/ It wasn’t even George Wallace, strictly speaking, though it was closer to that than Reagan. It was the blatant introduction of racist appeals under the guise of mainstream conservatism, and w/a polish and media-savvy Wallace lacked, as had most previous white supremacists...
3/ Duke knew how to use media. He cut 30 minute infomercials in his Senate run in 1990 — unheard of at the time — to slowly lay out his politics of racial resentment, knowing it would find a home w/white folks angered by previous GOP scapegoating of welfare, etc..
I won't lie, and all who agree should be honest: I wouldn't have shed a tear if the terrorists of 1/6 had been put down violently in their tracks. They were trying to kill lawmakers & overthrow what limited democracy we have. Screw them all. Lock them up. Now. And their enablers.
I realize that given the dynamics of a law enforcement apparatus that vastly underestimated the threat, not much more could have been done -- a firefight would have ended w/possibly the overrunning of the building as there were likely more guns in the mob than we know about...
So I'm not saying they should have shot or engaged more violently. Not doing so might have actually been the smarter move tactically. I'm just saying if they had laid these assholes out I would have gone about my daily routine without a second thought, and with a smirk...
1/ A few thoughts re: the increasingly accepted (and somewhat obvious) wisdom that "if the people who stormed the capitol had been Black they'd have been beaten or shot." This is true, so far as it goes, but too simple, in a way that MINIMIZES the power of whiteness in America...
2/ Don't misunderstand, I'm glad whenever white folks begin to see this kind of thing, and we all start somewhere. But there are at least 3 levels at which leaving it with the above argument minimizes the issue of systemic white supremacy (not just privilege)...
3/ First, to say "if they'd been black they'd have been beaten or shot," ignores a key element of white supremacy: the mentality of white entitlement, which led them to think they could do what they did w/o consequence in the first place...
It's not the MAGA mob's whiteness alone that explains why they weren't shot, beaten or arrested en masse. It's bc their rage seeks to reinforce the SYSTEM of whiteness, which they see threatened by Trump's defeat. If they were leftists or antiracists, they'd have been brutalized.
The bigger issue is the way law enforcement responds to people based on whether they are fighting to upend traditional hierarchy and injustice or reinforce and maintain it. If it's the latter, no problem. The former, all bets are off.
This means, typically, that Black and brown folks -- more likely to be protesting existing hierarchy and systems of domination -- will get the brunt of the abuse not merely for being Black and brown but for fighting white supremacy...
1/ What angers right-wing whites about @ReverendWarnock is what angered them about Jeremiah Wright. They can't comprehend the black prophetic tradition. Their Christianity is abt atoning for personal sin. For black folk it's also about atonement for collective sin like racism...
2/ The Black tradition sees Exodus not as a story about ancient Israelites alone, but as a story fully representative of their own search for the promised land -- a search ongoing and NOT fulfilled yet. For white conservatives, America is already the "shining city on a hill..."
3/ The Black tradition allows for an understanding of the cross and the lynching tree as symbolic synonyms (and even quite literal ones) (see James Cone), and to see America's sins as being judged by God...
1/ Wanting M4A is righteous & correct. Forcing the vote bc 'people are dying & can't wait' is empty rhetoric bc every rational person knows it won't pass. Doesn't mean forcing the vote is wrong but supporting it as if it will stop even 1 person from dying is grossly dishonest...
2/ The only other arguments I hear are essentially: a) this way we can figure out which Dems to primary (i.e., the ones who won't support M4A) and b) "we've tried it the patient way and it hasn't worked, so fuck it!" Let's look at these in reverse order...
3/ The "we've tried it your way" argument is vapid bullshit. First, the people saying that rarely have tried anything. They scream on Twitter & YouTube. They aren't organizers. They haven't run for office to try it that way. They're just pissed (rightly) and think rage = change..