The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.

Monday, December 9, 2013

Gingrich Leverages Mandela's Death And Not Very Different Than Santorum....While Defending Ronald Reagan

Newt Gingrich stated over the weekend, his respectful comments about Nelson Mandela were met with scorn from some on the Right.  We published a piece about the Gingrich charge, and our rejection of his Sarah Palin-like, "victim-hood." Our piece, however, did address our lack of understanding of Newt's alleged "surprise" at his allegations of scorn. If the Right-wing scorn actually took place, how could a life-long politicians and election cycle money-grabber (very much like Palin) fail to perceive what his party is all about. We also took exception to Gingrich's failure to acknowledge his idol (Ronald Reagan) was far less than sympathetic to the plight of the 80% of South African citizens who suffered under overwhelming racism, oppression, and segregation under the auspices of "apartheid." Gingrich affinity for colonials also garnered a few words of contempt from the writer of this piece.

Of particular note is the sickening 'white privilege' obsession from some American whites (especially Gingrich) with "violence"  against the system from a people oppressed to the extent of the black citizens of South Africa.
People lie dead and injured at the scene
Men, women and children fled
'like rabbits' as police opened fire
The Sharpsville Massacre 1960 (Video aftermath)
protestors running away from bullets
"Violence against the system!"  His conferred privilege drivel reminds of an unpopular phrase we sue here in the TPI, "the Invisible Negro."  You sew we do not write here to be popular, so scorn for use of the phrase is wasted.  Gingrich sticks to his utterances about violence, when acts are potentially focused on whites (And authority). He speaks very little about apartheid and violence perpetrated on the original denizens of South Africa (before it was called such).  He reminds of those who perpetrated Manifest Destiny sanctioned genocide against Original First Nation North Americans.  What were they called, "savages?"

We actually believe Gingrich is posturing for attention and maybe building a basis for another book. We know he is posturing in a political season that will go official in  few weeks.  He will be very visible during the 2014 mid-term elections as will his counter money-grabber and mouth-piece, Sarah Palin.  It is simply what they do!

As indicated in the link piece above, Gingrich hit the Sunday Morning GOP Sunday shows with his victim story.  He added to the plot (theme) today as his employer CNN provide yet another opportunity for personal advertising and self-aggrandizing.  From the latest news remote opportunity and via Chris Cuomo, Gingrich camera himself with a tale of 'two fronts.'

He continues to comment about scorn from the Right, but you will notice he actually seems to comment more about a story form Left Media (probably MSNBC) and Ronald Reagan's (invisible) fight against apartheid.

Since, we have written about our disgust with Gingrich's continue use of the word "violence" (as implied against whites from the African National Congress), let's focus on his rationalization of Ronald Reagan's veto of the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act.  A veto even some say Reagan regretted at a later data and well after thousand more died via violence from the South African government.

Yet, before we go on, think for a moment. If the United States, Britain and other western powers supported apartheid or offered only lip-service to ending the oppressive South African government practice, why wouldn't activist  reach-out for any sympathetic and supportive internal power?  The Soviet Union may have been to only leverage the ANC had in its fight against the oppressive apartheid regime.

In 2011, Salon published an article about Reagan and his laisezz-farie handling of the oppressive regime.
On a trip to the United States after winning the Nobel Prize in 1984, Bishop Desmond Tutu memorably declared that Reagan’s policy was ”immoral, evil and totally un-Christian.” Reagan’s record on South Africa was also marked by at least one embarrassing gaffe, when he told a radio interviewer in 1985: “They have eliminated the segregation that we once had in our own country — the type of thing where hotels and restaurants and places of entertainment and so forth were segregated — that has all been eliminated.” Of course, that was simply not true, and Reagan later walked the statement back. 
Despite claims from White House insider and Reagan aide Jim Baker, of Reagan's regret for vetoing the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act, Reagan's actions spoke much louder than Baker's belated attempts to cleanse. In fact, in order to understand why Reagan wears the support for apartheid collar, we simply look at his record on Civil Rights.  While we will not delve into it here, his adoption of the Kevin Phillips and Lee Atwater's Southern Strategy also bodes poorly for Baker and Gingrich cleansing of Reagan's legacy. And, of course, there is no need to revisit Reagan's support for Bob Jones University and its (for a longtime) Anti-racial "mixing" (dating and marriage) policy.  For sake of saving time, we will leave those racist indicators in Reagan's legacy and assume that you are aware of each (and more).

From an author over on Reagan and Racism Dot Blogspot Dot Com, we find what appears an accurate (and fair) depiction of why we find Reagan's lack of support for dismantling apartheid as an indication of racial indifference. 
It was long after Reagan left office that I heard about Reagan’s infamous speech at the Neshoba County Fair, right outside Philadelphia, Mississippi where three civil rights workers—James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner--had been slain in 1964. Reagan used this historic area to send a coded message to Southern racist. Ragan told the crowd that he was in favor of “state rights” and that as president he would "restore to states and local governments the power that belongs to them." Reagan shared the stage with John Bell Williams, a notorious segregationist and then-Representative Trent Lott who applauded Strom Thurmond's 1948 Dixiecrat campaign. Reagan only came to the Neshoba County Fair after Mississippi's Republican national committeeman wrote his campaign to advise that it would be a good place to reach out to "George Wallace-inclined voters.” Reagan’s 1980 campaign manager, Lee Atwater acknowledged in 1981 that the strategy had been designed to appeal to "the racist side of the [George] Wallace voter" without antagonizing other Americans who might be offended by ugly Wallace-style racism. As Atwater explained, "You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger.' By 1968 you can't say 'nigger'—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like 'forced busing,' 'states' rights,' and all these things that you're talking about are totally economic things and a by-product of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it... because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'Nigger, nigger.'"
We do not posit Reagan was factually a racist in the classic sense, but indifference to issues of race at the presidential level is dangerous for a diverse nation. Indifference when it comes to nationalism, racial tolerance, and xenophobia as a dangerous as the guy standing on the corner waving a Confederate Flag and wearing a 'Genocide Perp'  tee shirt.

Newt Gingrich continues to leverage his employment with CNN for personal and political gain.  Even, if his reports of harassment from the Right are true, what was the point on placing "unknown and unnamed" harassers on "spot-light, for doing what conservatives do?
Ah yes, you are correct that is not an indication of Reagan as a racist. We agree with other writers, he was probably not a racist. However, we harken back to a few lines up and out posit on "indifference" and the dangers of using race for political gain or simply being indifferent to a bias (or bigoted) core value of the GOP. 

A couple of examples of how even during the 1980s what appeared as a faltering (mentally) president did not find it possible to avoid use of the word, "Negro."  Not a horrid example of bias, but surely an example of indifference when other more common vernacular was available and assimilated to the speech of most.  

The Progressive in June of 2004, published a concise and revealing review of Ronald Reagan and his bias against black people. We will link the piece despite our overwhelming inclination to post excerpts. It is a must quick read!

Gingrich will have his week or two related to the death of a great human being who suffered under racist oppression in a manner common to most outside of the Black Race.  The sadness of Gingrich has come around to yet another 360 degree exhibition of his penchant for opportunism, via his claim of being harassed from the Right. He is also pathetic in his defense of a president he often quotes and holed up as The example of the prototypical US president, when Reagan was so deeply flawed in matters of race.

Anyone who exhibited what we have delineated related to Ronald Reagan shouldn't find it in anyway difficult to see the same indifference towards the oppressed black population in South Africa.

We categorically reject Gingrich Reagan defense, and we remain skeptical of his claims of attacks from the Right.

Now, we await MSNBCs response to his early morning assertion (without mentioning MSNBC) of a progressive news networks mention of Reagan as racially insensitive and a contributor to Apartheid.

No comments :

Post a Comment