Morgan Freeman Thinks the Tea Party is Racist

Okay, the obvious has now been stated by someone {of stature} other than concerned debaters here on Gather News, so what did his statement actually accomplish, if anything.

It's old news with the same message and same sentiment, {i.e.} racism exist against our president by an extremist members of the Republican Party.

Unfortunately, there is no evidence that those harboring such shameful attitudes of hate and bigotry will have a change of mentality anytime in the foreseeable future.

I dunno... although I agree with Mr. Freeman, and I certainly support his right, even obligation, to make public his opinion, I wonder why we give so much weight to celebrity political opinions. It's true that the overwhelming sentiment from the right toward celebrities from the film, television and arts worlds is negative (and loudly so), but actors, singers and artists have impacted politics for a long time, and not just on behalf of us terrible lib'ruls. I remember John Wayne and Bob Hope stumping for Nixon in 1960. And, much as many of us would like to, who can forget Ronald Reagan?

But what makes them any more likely to have a worthwhile political opinion than you or I? Sure, they speak well and with certitude and passion, but they're trained to deliver lines with which they have no association with certitude and passion.

I think people get caught up in the most prominent persona an actor or artist may be known for (and they all exhibit many), and react to that. I recall someone saying after a John Wayne stump speech, 'When a true American Hero tells you how things are, you should believe him." Really? John Wayne was a "true American hero?" He PORTRAYED heroes, but he had no hero 'creds' of his own. Besides, if that were true, Senator Kerry would have been elected President in 2000 in a landslide by the very people who vilified him.

Reagan tried to circumvent the call for sanctions on So. Africa’s apartheid gov by claiming sanctions would only hurt the black African. (yeah he cared about black people)The rethugs said they were FOR the working man hence they pushed right to work. (yeah they care for the working man)The rethugs of the ‘60’s were against communism hence their opposition to civil rights.
NOW, they claim they don’t hate him cuz he’s black, they hates him cuz he’s a commie out to destroy America. This excuse comes straight out of Nazi websites. Look at any Aryan/Nazi/Klan site and they will lay out that they oppose those who want to destroy America NOT because they are racists but because they are Patriots!

Of COURSE they're Patriots! Weren't you listening? They SAID so... and you're NOT, because you don't agree with 'em on absolutely everything.

Besides, yer a damned lib'rul. Why, yer near as bad as that Chuck feller.

Mr. Freeman is entitled to his opinions.

No doubt. He's even entitled to voice 'em.

My question is, "Why do we care?"

And Chuck, I must say, I don't especially.

Part of that of course, is that he and I have similar political leanings, but part is because he's just another guy with an opinion.

Now Morgan Freeman. First Janeane Garofalo suggests that you should think a certain way based on the color of your skin -- and the Tea Party is racist? ... http://placeitonluckydan.com/2011/08/janeane-garofalos-true-ideological-grit/

There is true racism going on in the country today and it is what you libs have done to the blacks for the past 40 years. You made them dependant on you and they accept the meager handouts your party bestows upon them and reward you with their votes.

You have made them the modern day native american. Their reservations are the broken down and bankrupt inner cities. Their schools are shambles and graduate about 50% of the students. Crime is rampant, the killing of kids on their way to and from school is an almost every day event.

Also how about these facts on race...

The GOP is the party of Lincoln, a party founded to oppose slavery. The GOP, over the objections of the Democratic Party, backed the 13th, 14th and 15th constitutional amendments that freed blacks, granted blacks citizenship and granted blacks the right to vote, respectively. For over 100 years, Democrats fought against civil rights legislation, often reversing pro-civil rights legislation passed by Republicans.

Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan, once called the "terrorist wing of the Democratic Party." It was Southern Democrats like Alabama's Gov. George Wallace and Birmingham Commissioner of Public Safety "Bull" Connor who opposed integration. As a percentage of the party, more Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act than did Democrats.

Since good education is the ticket to the middle class, why does the Democratic Party force children to go to government schools with a 50 percent urban dropout rate -- while refusing to give the parents a say in the matter?

How has government dependency helped black Americans? Since Democratic President Lyndon Johnson launched the pro-welfare-state "war on poverty," poverty has flatlined. But the percentage of black children born to unwed mothers -- many living in government-dependent households -- has increased from 25 percent to 70 percent.

In the 2008 presidential elections 95% of blacks voted for Obama....yet today we have zero black democratic senators....how is that even possible. Is it because that while the dems love the black vote they don't actually want to associate themselves with them.

Why has the democratic party never nominated someone that is 100% of the black race to run for president? Is it because you think like Joe Biden....Speaking to the New York Observer: Biden was equally skeptical — albeit in a slightly more backhanded way — about Mr. Obama. “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

You libs can spout all you want about race but the facts of your actions remain very clear.....your party are the true racists.

John, This is like the kettle calling the pot black!

Although the GOP worked to free slaves it wasn't for any noble reason. In fact, Lincoln supported the south's "right" to own slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation only covered slaves that escaped to the union side of the country. His goal was not to end slavery but save the union.

Lincoln said, "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I ... am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."

He also said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that."

And those racist, slave owning Democrats moved to the Republican party after Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, and they were welcomed with open arms.

As far as education, parents do have a say, they just don't say it. Teachers and government are not babysitters. It is the parent's responsibility to make sure their child goes to school and graduates.

As for representation, there are black members of congress. Perhaps you're not aware but white people vote too. and you're right, Democrats were the party of racism but their in your party now. What are you doing about it?

Lincoln did not abolish slavery in the border states. That was a compromise that he accepted. We also know it was about money more than slavery anyway.

re: John's post;

YAWN. Have you nothing new to say?

John A,As a percentage of the party, more Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act than did Democrats.

Actually you are wrong.

The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)

Chelsea H.,

"Certainly people who support tea party "ethics" are going to jump all over Morgan Freeman for his comments." THis seems to demonstrate a political bigotry, if you support you will jump. As best I can tell Mr. Freeman has first hand knowledge of the affects of racism, with that knowledge I should surely take his statements as fatacomply. And if I don't then I am presumed to be one of the Tea party ilk.

Is there any choice in the matter, agree and be accepted, disgree and be stereotyped.

I wonder what is Mr. Freeman's criteria for being a racist for a Tea Party member or just as bad someone that subscribes to a few of their tenets? I wonder if idelogical bigot is any worse than a racial bigotry.

I have been called many things by many people, I have been called them by people who have never met me, have never seen how I interact with others, by those who have never asked why I think the way I do, but they are all self assured that they know what I think, what I believe, how I act.

I have enjoyed much of Mr. Freeman's work, he is a fine actor that creates wonderful roles. I have no idea what kind of a person he is nor do I believe he truly knows what kind of a person I am.

I do believe that name calling, "the tea party is racist," does nothing but make the speaker feel good (as if he /she has acted to change things), while in truth they have simply creates a barrier to the change they clam they want.

As I have said I have been called many things, for me, the name caller always raises doubts in my mind if they really care about me and changing things. How would you react if someone labeled you with old time derogitory name? Would it encourage you to sit down with them to see if things could be changed?

Mr. Freeman has his opinion, I am surely glad he can voice it so openly (for if he can then so can I). However, I wonder if he really wants thing to change or is he simply afraid they will change in a way he can't control. As best I can tell the driving force for the Tea Party was the out of balance spending and borrowing, I am no sure that has changed, I am not clear that that is racist, I do know if someone who doesn;t know me is willing to call me a racist they have little interest in knowing if I am or want to encourage me to do what I do. It really doesn;t matter, I do what I do because it is what I have learned to do it.

And before you label me, realize my presumption is that each person I meet is capable and deserves respect. One example I will offer, was of a person of a different race, we differed on many things, he moved on to a very successful career track but the experiences/learning of his youth prevented him from recognizing that he was working with people who respected him for who he was not what he was. He only realized that his attitude took him off that career path after it had happened. Attitude can shape how you approach others and that can affect how others respnd.

Don't be so quick to label people you don't know in a very public ways if you ever want them to listen to you. I am not sure Mr. Freeman subscribes to this philosophy.

If you were black and Mr. Freemans age you wouldn't be asking such questions nor woluld you wonder why he chose to use the term "tea party" when he spoke of racist.

You may not personally be a racist, but if you consider yourself to be a Teapublican in ideology, then you must accept the racist stigma which goes with the territory.

Please provide the definition for the word "fatacomply" which you used in the first paragraph of your comment.

Scott H.,

First let aplogize for my typing, it should have read 'fata accompli' meaing done irreversible. In this case if you agree with any presented tenet of the Tea Party then you are a 'racist' since the Tea party is 'racist' per Mr. Freeman. "if you consider yourself to be a Teapublican in ideology, then you must accept the racist stigma which goes with the territory"

It seem that only a black man that grew up in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, knows racism, and whenever he says people are racist then we should stop thinking and accept that his is the proper label for all those people. I was never taught to give up my thinking to others.

I will offer that during that same period there were others who suffer as much at the hands of racists as Mr. Freeman, they were the eastern Europeans, they were the Asian, they were the Hispanics, they were the Catholics, they were Jews, they were the whites in the wrong neighborhoods.

Have you ever considered what a Nisie experieinced during that time? But only Mr. Freeman can tell what a racist is. I disagree.

I do believe that spending what we don't have is going to lead our country into a situation that will cause severe suffering for far more than are currently considered at risk, that lack accountablity of programs for the results they were designed is wasteful and will contribute to damage of our economic status, that when governemnt is more about control than it is about performance it is damaging the capacity of our system.

I also believe in equal opportunity not equal outcomes, I believe in freedom of choice and that a person be allow to live with the consequences of their choices (as much as I may disagree with the choice).

What I am interested in is how do those things justify my being labeled a 'racist'.

Are you sure you are a teabagger? You certainly do not sound like one! Freedom is not in the teabagger vocabulary.

Lee P.,

Thanks for questioning my teabagger credentials, because that suggests that just maybe a person can be a teabagger without being a racist as Mr. Freeman and other seem to think.

As best I can tell those who are anti-teabaggers, have no hesitations about raises spending, raising debt, raising taxes, increasing goverenment, and only want those who have succeeded to sacrifice.

Since I am the opposite; I am for cutting spending even when it is other peoples money being spent, since I feel the best way to have control is with reduced debt so I will sacrifice my wants and even my needs to do that, since I don't believe in any of the tax incentives and I believe the only way people appreciate what they have is to pay/sacrfice for it (even only pays not just the waethiest), and since I believe the American people are as smart as the government and have better ideas of how to get value for their dollar, I may not have my teabagger 'card' but I am as close to a teabagger can be without having one.

no offense guys, but I don't read article-long comments.

Chelsea h.,

None taken, the gist of mine is that labeling people is lazy thinking and risks offending those who really do work for change.

thanks. lol, I read too much as it is ya know :P clutters my mind.. adhd and such

Chelsea H.,

How do you think Mr. Freeman's remarks explain Mr. Cain winning the Florida GOP straw vote?

Duane;

Your question it ridiculous. It makes all sorts of irrelevant and unproveable assumptions about the people in the straw poll.

Ali L.,

My only question is if the tea party is racist, "the tea party is racist" "the people who share the mentalities that a black man shouldn't hold office", and those who subscribe to some of the tea party tenets are also racist, "Tea Party ideals with cultural and racial issues". If that is the case then by most criteria Mr. Cain is a 'black man' running for office and at this point in time he was supported by many people who support many of the tea party tenets.

What is so ridiculous to wonder how Mr. Freeman's remarks explain these recent events?

As for my assumptions, I am using quotes from the article and reports from the media on the vote in Florida. As best I can tell the straw vote was such that there were no crossover votes from outside the party activists, those that do more then simply vote in the public elections.

What is unprovable, the Mr, Freeman's remarks, the voting in the Florida GOP straw poll, or the basis for Mr. Freeman's remarks?

Here ya go:

I feel like I woke up on this planet when I see and hear crap like this:

Charles;

Most of us think that you're broadcasting from that planet anyway.

all I can think of when I see the pic is Minecraft.. which I am now playing...

Uh oh, the Blockheads are on the march, time to call Gumby and Pokey!

Chelsea: that is not news at all. The USA has been a racist state since 1776. Not only the Tea Party is racist. The whole oligarchic political economic system of the USA is not only racist, but classist. With 5% of the population concentrating about 85% of the wealth of America. Leaving the 95% of US population to fight for the crumbles.

The oppressed americans white, blacks, spanish, etc. are all victims of this system !!

Watch this video of George Carlin, where he says that The American Dream only exists when you are sleeping:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q





.

It's never going to get any better, don't look for it, be happy with what you've got...BECAUSE THE OWNERS OF THIS COUNTRY DON'T WANT THAT. I'm talking about the real owners now...the REAAL owners. The big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions."..

"Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice . . . you dont. You have no choice. You have OWNERS. They OWN *you*. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. Theyve long since bought, and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying . . . lobbying, to get what they want . . . Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but Ill tell you what they dont want . . . they dont want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They dont want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. Theyre not interested in that . . . that doesnt help them. Thats against their interests. Thats right. They dont want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think about how badly theyre getting ***** by a system that threw them overboard 30 *****' years ago. They dont want that. You know what they want? They want obedient workers . . . Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly ***** jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it, and now theyre coming for your Social Security money. They want your *****' retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street, and you know something? Theyll get it . . . theyll get it all from you sooner or later cause they own this *****' place. Its a big club and you ain't in it. You and I are not in The big club. By the way, its the same big club they use to beat you over the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head with their media telling you what to believe, what to think and what to buy. The table has tilted folks. The game is rigged and nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. Good honest hard-working people . . . white collar, blue collar it doesnt matter what color shirt you have on. Good honest hard-working people continue, these are people of modest means . . . continue to elect these rich ***** who dont give a ***** about you. They dont give a ***** about you . . . they dont give a ***** about you. They dont care about you at all . . . at all . . . at all, and nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. Thats what the owners count on. The fact that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white and blue dick thats being jammed up their ***** everyday, because the owners of this country know the truth. Its called the American Dream, 'cause you have to be asleep to believe it . . .

-George Carlin


Time For A New Revolution?

It is quite abstractly humorous, while at the same time, unethically immoral, when we are verbally set upon by white males in today's society who preceive to speak of racism as if they have had to lived it and therefore know what it entails. When in fact, they have neither had to endure such inhumane treatment themselves nor lived during the era when such amoral attitudes held by whites against blacks was considered to be socially acceptable.

In today's society, racism has more or less gone underground and those still harboring such mentally use code words instead of the "N" word to get their point across to others having the same attitude. No racism is not dead, neither is bigotry, both are only being denied as still existing.

Writing page long compositions as a means by which to make a point, only serves to demonstrate that the writer has to some degree, either a personal feeling of guilt concerning the issue of debate or is trying to impress readers with his preceived literary skills. In either instance, the dissertation became boring to most readers and the writer's point became mute and therefore, it was all for naught.

Scott H.,

Are you so sure that only people a single race can experience racism. You maybe to young to recall such words as 'Honky', 'Polock', 'Hunky', 'Wop', etc. And have never known the descrimination they suffered. Or epithets that were only thrown at 'whites' when those of other races part of the same group.

Noone should deny that racism or bigorty is dead. Neither should anyone believe that only one group is the victim of racists and bigots or that there aren't racists and bigots in in every racial group.

The article is not about you, me nor anyone or anything else. The subject of the aritcle addresses only Mr. Freeman and his personal view of the Tea Party in general.

As always, when the shoe fits and the foot odor is extremely pungent, the wearer {in this case, You} will attempt to change the subject and/or make the subject to be about something other than what he/she wants it to be written thereon.

Mr. Freeman being 75 years of age was born in Memphis Tenn and raised in Charlestown Mississippi. As such, he without a doubt has had his share of racism projected in his direction. He was one of five children born to a devoted mother and an absent alcoholic father during the Jim Crowe era. A boy who spent most of his life in abject poverty as a black person.

Mr. Freeman has known racism firsthand for most of his life and he doesn't need people such as you questioning his reasons for his statement nor attempting to suggest that his feelings are unwarranted and/or misplaced.

Scott H.,

I totally agree that Mr. Freeman has experienced racist first hand. My concern is labeling people that he does not know nor seen practice racism as racists has great risk in anlinating those of them who are truly activily opposed to racism and are most likely doing personal things to knock it down.

In today's world racism is comment on a person's honor, of someone without knowing me is so willing to mar my honor why should I be willing to give value to his opinion, why should I not disregard his perspective, why should I not stereotyping him just as easily?

There is no question that individual teabaggers that how views and display those views openly at public events, but to condemn those around them who are not doing any of those things or those who aren;t there simply because they support the overiding topic of the gathering speak more about the thoughtfulness of the people making the broad over-reaching condemnation then it does about who is carrying the sign.

Okay, I will try one more time;

Mr Freeman was speaking in "general" when stating that the Teapublicans segment of the Republican Party in his opinion were racist. He did not say that each and every member of the Teapublicans were racist, he spoke in general terms.

Much as most baseball fans would say about a baseball team which spent the entire year in last place, {i.e.} "They are a lousy team".

The statement would not be referring to any individual player(s), just the team in "general". You may have had a 500 batting average for the year, however, as a member of the team, you get caught under the umbrella of the generalized statement.

Scott H.,

The concern I have with your analogy is that there is a public record of the perfroamnce of each player, and if the judgement of the team is solely on that the general criteria of batting average and the public record is of each players batting average that the difference is public and comparison is well defined for all to make.

If you are part of a team and that team is condemned/belittled/demonize how would any member of that team or anyone outside that team know he did not mean any particular member of the team? How would anyone be able to decide which members were excluded?

Goodby !!!