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
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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
2 comments
Read more

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i
Post a Comment
Read more

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"
Post a Comment
Read more