Please explain to me how the pushback against Obama is because he's a minority, or the rise of the Tea Party in general, and how complex and indirect racism have played a large role in these things in spite of most participants not being racist themselves.
the rise of the teaparty and much more conservative politics in this country is in part the result of a non white leftwing president being elected. both his race and ideology are too blame, not 1 or the other but if bill clinton was president(without the scandals) the shift to the far right wouldnt have been as extreme even tho their ideologies in practice arent much different.(obama and clinton's) obama being elected isnt the only reason for the rise of more conservative politics in the republican party but it did play a major role.(many people on the right even believe that obama is a socialist, muslim, or that he wasnt even born in this country. All of which are rediculous claims brought against him because he looks different than the previous presidents and because of his name.) Obama has not been a far left president(he has been center left) but the elected republican congress(many of them teaparty and or far right) have been acting as if they've been dealing with that. bill clinton(without the scandals) could have done the same things as obama and wouldnt have gotten the same amount of pushback because of his name and appearance. Not sure about hillary because I dont know how the right would react to a woman president. some of the racism going on today is more direct and obvious like police profiling and killing unarmed black people or their rate of imprisonment and sentencing.(and a legal and prison system that profit off of this) some is indirect is more bias and elected officials just not caring about minorities or the communities they live in(they often times cant afford to move elsewhere) like what happened to flint michigan's water, or the poverty and problems that are allowed to persist in minority communities even though the country is rich, and could fix many of the issues at a fraction of the cost it spends on the millitary if it cared enough and chose to do so. many of the problems in minority communities that exist today are a direct result of the wrongs of the past that this country did to them, yet the country does little to address them while it spends a ton on millitary(and the millitary industrial complex even tho no country in the year 2016 is a real threat to the united states...) and other stuff that only marginally benefits this country and its people.
There are a couple of different issues here, potentially related, of course, but none the less... I agree that Obama's election was a large part of it, however, I don't agree that Bill Clinton would not have had the same backlash if he'd done the same things in the same timing. One of the reasons the Tea Party did not start up during the Clinton years was in part because his Presidency actually managed the budget far better than his precedents and antecedents. He did, of course, engage in (unconstitutional?) usage of UAMF, he also pushed for (largely unsuccessfully) what is effectively PATRIOT light in the way of the OK City bombings, and his administration's workers largely bungled the Waco situation. There were also rumors of him selling weapons to the Chinese that got swept under the rug in favor for sex scandals. And of course the "Arkancided" stuff leading up to his presidency (which is still somewhat of an issue for Hillary as well but it's long been buried and there are more recent issues to attack her on). It's also worth noting that I do think some of the political backlash (which wasn't as strong but still present) against the Bushes and the Clintons has to do with them being White. I just don't think it's a major factor. But for the most part, while his ideology might have been similar to Obama's on certain points, the fact is that he was much more moderate than Obama, and had many more things with which to claim success on. I think, sex scandals aside, if Bill had done the same things that Obama had done, it still would have led to further strengthening the Tea Party (which again is primarily based on economy and tax issues). And that the Republicans would have been just as obstructionist. You can disagree with that of course, but if you want to convince me to change my mind you're going to need more than just you saying it's a major factor and show me how and where it is. So this ties into the other topics... While I very much agree there are issues here, it is also true that (according to the possibly racist DOJ and FBI) almost half of all homicides where the perpetrator's identity are known were done by Black people. This is of course in spite of Black people not making up nearly half of the population (Latino homicides were also on the rise, but still much more in keeping with their relative population; it's also worth noting that the vast majority of homicides were intra-racial). These figures are somewhat old (a decade or so), so it's possible this has changed. However the point of bringing it up is to point out that not all of this rate of imprisonment has to do with racism, at least not direct and obvious racism. Rather, if anything, it has to do with the rooting of Gang culture within poor communities (many of which are made up of minorities). This isn't a factor for many other minorities. It seems that Asiatic and (though this may be/have changed) Middle Eastern and other minorities don't have this issue. But I also believe they don't have as high a rate of being imprisoned. Of course, the history of discrimination for these other minorities were largely different. Still very present (as was discrimination against the Irish for example, Jews, Catholics, and other generally considered "white" minorities), but manifested different, for different times, and with different results. Jim Crow cared much more about determining if someone was Black than determining if someone was Irish, or even Chinese. So it's not as if one can fully equate one minority as having been "treated equal" to another minority in all cases. It also shows us different rates of assimilation into the broader "American" culture. None the less, the most reliable records available show that there are issues within Black communities, which I believe is partially responsible for the over-reaction in some cases (though I'm also quite certain some of it is genuine racism, I'm not saying these aren't factors, just that they aren't major factors in the rise of the Tea Party or the pushback against Obama or the rise of Trump*). And obviously this is a factor in prison sentencing and time. There could be an argument that there are operatives encouraging this, though whether out of racism or simply wanting to exploit poor people at the time is not clear to me. Possibly both. *(At least not against Obama specifically, there is likely some anti-semetic [Muslim version] "racism" contributing at least in part to Trump's rise, but this is different from reaction to Obama so much as reaction to Isis and Al-Qaeada, in my view, though I'm sure in some cases there is overlap, I don't think it's a major contributing factor here.) I can see some of this. I would, however, point out that while the majority of Flint's population is Black, there is a significant presence of White people there as well. The Whites are a minority in that community but not by that much. (also, I think Whites in America are technically a minority now, just the largest "single" minority [in part due to lack of distinction, again Jim Crow doesn't care much if you're Irish], I could be wrong on this however.) I think, rather than "because they are minorities" it's because it's poor communities. I also think part of this is how Feds and States interact in terms of tax money. A lot of State funding gets taken by the Federal government, which then re-alots it according to "pork-barrel" spending (which isn't always actually pork-barrel spending, but looks to a lot of people like Congressmen wanting to specifically feed into their own little pet projects). I absolutely agree that more money should be spent on infrastructure than on the Military. But I don't think this is done out of racism so much as it is done out of simple greed and corruption. Poor white communities get the shaft as well after all. Some richer ones too for that matter. The people trying to continuously expand the Military Industrial Complex, in my view, aren't doing so to shaft minorities, but rather to accumulate their own power even at the expense of the nation as a whole, white, black, brown, immigrant or colonial descendant. They certainly didn't seem to mind Obama's policies, or seem to care that he was "Black" (other than, I would argue, that it helped get him in power by manipulating the minorities to vote for him). Though it is worth noting that his behavior was very much "establishment" and "white" if you want to call it that. Even down to shafting and betraying the minorities (and in my view the nation in general as well) in order to further expand both his offices power, and the Military Industrial Complex as a whole. I'm sure of course some are very much racists of course. Planned Parenthood for example was founded on racist ideologies of eugenics and hoping to limit the Black population via birth control and abortion (masquerading as empowering Black women in the process). While it might not still hold those ideals, I wouldn't be surprised if some of that on various levels was going on. But I don't think it's a major factor in either Trump's current popularity (again, other than maybe some anti-semitism), or the Tea Party (in general). Nor do I think the political backlash against Obama's policies and actions had to do with his race... I could be wrong, but I just don't believe that the backlash would have been significantly lessened had Obama been as white as Wonder Bread. Again, it's just my view of things. For better or for worse, it's not really something we can empirally test. We can't go back in time and make someone of a different racial background take the office and do the exact same things to see if the backlash really would be different/lessened/greater/gone or whatever.
I generally think this is getting to the point where people are mixing up words. I see people say that someone is 'racist' when a more accurate and politically correct term would be that they're just an arsehole.
