Skip to main content

Mo Brooks' "war on whites" never included slavery...

Alabama Representative Mo Brooks isn't shy about making controversial remarks, yet he still found a way to raise a few eyebrows with his most recent comment, as he said this with regard to Democrats' critique of Donald Trump's pick for attorney general, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions:

"It's really about political power and racial division and what I've referred to on occasion as the 'war on whites.' They are trying to motivate the African-American vote to vote-bloc for Democrats by using every 'Republican is a racist' tool that they can envision. Even if they have to lie about it."

I'm sorry, but this comment is stupid beyond words. There is no "war on whites" in this country; there is simply a war on equality led by whites (this includes Mo Brooks). Let's place things into their proper perspective here.

Slavery

Brooks: "War on whites!"

Segregation

Brooks: "War on whites!"

Discriminatory criminal justice system

Brooks: "War on whites!"

Uneven school funding

Brooks: "War on whites!"

Police suspicions (and shootings/deaths)

Brooks: "War on whites!"

Whites, straight white Christian men in particular, have long possessed a great number of privileges in this country, and with that, have taken for granted what many others lack. Marriage rights for the LGBT community isn't a "war on whites," it's a fight for equality. Being seen as the same in the eyes of authority figures and the law, regardless of one's skin color, isn't a "war on whites," it's a fight for equality. Providing similar education and opportunities regardless of a person's skin tone isn't a "war on whites," it's a fight for equality. Mo Brooks can believe whatever he'd like, but any time he even so much as thinks there's a "war on whites," he should read up on unrevised history, come to terms with slavery, and realize he never needed to stand in line to drink from a separate water fountain for "colored people." There isn't a "war on whites;" there's simply a fight for equality because some whites don't want to see their privileges quashed, even if it's for the betterment of society as a whole.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/defending-sessions-gop-congressman-sees-war-whites

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Mentioned on Crooks and Liars and Hinterland Gazette!

Due to some tweets of mine, I got mentioned on the following two sites (all my tweets can be viewed here -  https://twitter.com/CraigRozniecki ): https://crooksandliars.com/2019/04/trump-gives-stupid-advice-george https://hinterlandgazette.com/2019/03/istandwithschiff-is-trending-after-donald-trump-led-gop-attack-on-adam-schiff-backfires-spectacularly.html

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...