When Using Stereotypes Is Acceptable To The Anti-Racist Police
Obama has a problem with his masculine image; some have even called him effeminate. In the world of the patriarchy, being effeminate is a bad thing. It means you throw like a girl. No one wants to throw or catch like a girl and often girls distance themselves from other girls, (Have you seen that awful Nutri-system commercial featuring Jillian Barberie catching a football? When catching a football she proudly asks, “how many girls can do that?).
So in order to improve his masculine persona the doting media constructs the image of a thug, because silly and laughing girls are not thugs, only men are thugs, men who can conquer and overpower other men. Now, in other circumstances framing a black man as a thug is a no-no, a racist stereotype, a definite invitation for anti-racist disdain. There is too much history in the black man as thug trope, but it can be balanced for good when necessary. For starters, a thug is just one small step from being a thief, a gun toting thief, an illegally obtained gun, a mugger, a violent mugger, a mugger with a cutlass, and if that thug is black, then a rapist, a rapist that preys on white women, white women who really wanted to be raped by that black thug, but played it off enough when it was discovered to get the white man to jailed that thug, therefore maintaining her virtuous persona, but not really, because what good white man will ever want her now?
Wait, I’m going to fast, so far who has been painted in a bad light? Let’s see, the black thug for sure, the lying white woman, but not the white man because he is the saviour. Okay, well what about black women. Well, black women like thugs. At least that is what resentful black men who claim to want a black woman but cannot get one claims (he can get one, he just cannot control her the way he wants to, therefore he finds an excuse for his failings). At least that is the excuse used by some black men when apologising for a brother’s lack of parental responsibility/involvement because that fast ass ho should not have opened her legs for that thug from the giddy up. It’s her fault thugs exist, he is only supplying a demand.
Who knew this stereotype game could be so much fun. I guess the media did, that’s who and people with an agenda, people who want/need a pay off. Where am I? Who has fallen victim to stereotypes thus far? Black men who are not in power, white and black women, feminine men, and thugs, no not thugs, the women who fall for thugs, thugs are still okay so far, as long as it makes a man not a feminine man. Wink.
So what is one to do when they want to get a jab in at those Jews (You know the Jews, the people that many white and black non-Jewish Americans hate but cannot openly express that hate but wish they can so when there is an opportunity to speak in code and get away with it they take it, yeah those Jews.) and help a less than hypermasucline black man out? They turn a three-minute conversation into a stereotype. The black thug corners the helpless Jew. Ta da! Success. The WASPs (and now the neo–WASPs, A.K.A. creative class white men) earn a double tingle up their legs. They get away with painting a black man (on their side) as a thug and they get to make a Jewish man appear emasculated. In this case, the anti-racist police will refrain from calling out the racist code because it works to the one black man’s advantage and to the advantage of the neo–WASPs as well and women are still inferior in the process.
Roll Call reports that during a Senate vote today, Sen. Barack Obama “dragged” [a thug action, dog whistle] Sen. Joe Lieberman “by the hand [a child, a victim, framing] to a far corner of the Senate chamber and engaged in what appeared to reporters in the gallery as an intense, three-minute conversation.””While it was unclear what the two were discussing, the body language suggested that Obama was trying to convince Lieberman of something and his stance appeared slightly intimidating [thugs intimidate, dog whistle].””Using forceful [thugs are like this], but not angry [oh, we must soften it a bit because even though we want to make Obama masculine, we have to remember the angry black man trope and to maintain that we are not racist], hand gestures [dog whistle], Obama literally backed up Lieberman against the wall [thugs do this, dog whistle], leaned in very close [thugs do this, dog whistle] at times, and appeared to be trying to dominate [people in power do this, dog whistle] the conversation, as the two talked over each other in a few instances.” “Still, Obama and Lieberman seemed to be trying to keep the back-and-forth congenial as they both patted each other on the back during and after the exchange.[Yes, we must assert here that although we are painting Obama as a thug for advantageous reasons, we must also pretend everything is kool in order to keep an opening, in case the racist-masculine framing backfires] Afterwards, Obama smiled and pointed up at reporters peering over the edge of the press gallery for a better glimpse of their interaction.” [But of course, we all know how the media can be manipulated. The media works for the power players, even if those players are corrupt and abusive.] [framing].
See, racist dog whistles are only wrong when it appears to come from someone else that is not part of the accepted group. However, when those dog whistles come from the very side who would complain if it were coming from their opponent, then it is just fine, because it works for them. It is called hypocrisy. Two white senators speaking privately on the senate floor would have never been framed as thugs. Where is the outrage for framing Obama as a thug?