South Carolina Sen. Glenn McConnell (center) flanked by two members of the Gullah-Geechee cultural group
In early September, The National Federation of Republican Women held its annual fall Board of Directors meeting in Charleston, SC. One of the sponsored events connected with the meeting was a themed one dubbed "The Southern Experience". This involved people dressing in attire from the Civil War era such as military uniforms and slavery garb.
Why would anyone think this was a good idea? Even if this were 1970, I'd ask the same question. It's incidents like this which is why I think many in the GOP are clueless when it comes to race matters in this country. Oh and just to be clear, the blacks who dressed up as slaves for this event aren't off the hook either!
Below is the segment in which WCBD-TV Channel 2 in Charleston covers the incident:
7 comments:
these morons are clueless. Do ya notice how the conservatives bend over backwards to embrace the blacks in their party so to say "OH look at us we love our black brothers and sisters". Christine O'Donnell had a black man standing behind her during her acceptance speech and specifically turned around to hug him for the camera! LMAO!! These people crack me up!
So period reenactment is taboo in new America?
Well, I can't comment on that too much. I would only imagine that some people aren't so ubersensi about it and don't mind dressing the part knowing that they'll go home to a bed and safety and not a broken down shed with OG whiplash.
I took a field trip in 1994, if I remember right, to some plantation property where everyone was dressed up. I also watched some bunk play with Civil War-era reenactors.
There were slaves, slave owners, soldiers, etc, in both.
Or the "GOP" thing is what's really getting to people?
I have an uncle who still wears his 1960s attire. Personally, I find that far more offensive lol
Adding to the oddness of this whole "Southern Experience" event held by the National Federation of Republican Women...wasn't it Republicans who opposed slavery (and founded the party to oppose it), and Republicans who ran Reconstruction and occupied and more or less punished the South for about ten years?
And then the event was held in the city where the first shots of the Civil War were fired, Charleston. BTW if you prefer to call the conflict "the War Between the States....or even "The War of Northern Aggression", as some far right home school textbooks do, be my guest.
This is just keeping the Republican tradition of keeping "quasi history" alive and well...just enough truth for public consumption, but not coming close to telling the real story.
Sue: The prominent placement of minorities on stage with conservatives hasn't gone unnoticed by me either. I don't think the black man standing behind Christine was an accident. I noticed something similar when Michele Bachmann gave a speech announcing her PAC.
Josh: I have no issue with period reenactments. However, this came off as more of a glorification of a way of life that doesn't exist anymore. I don't know about you, but photos of present day blacks smiling while dressed in slavery garb leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
As for the GOP, just within the last year there have been members who've made some controversial moves/remarks regarding race/ethnicity. For example:
Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell reviving Confederate History Month, but with no reference to slavery
Sen. Jake Knotts using the term "raghead" to refer to both Nikki Haley and President Obama
Regarding your uncle who still wears 60s attire... don't knock tie-dyed T-shirts, Nehru jackets, or love beads!
Hugh Jee: I don't know if it's just me, but it seems that the Republicans over the past year or so have gone into overdrive with rewriting history. Consider what went down in TX with the Board of Education rewriting history books to fit the conservative agenda.
Well, I'm certainly not taking a stand in saying that it wasn't or shoudn't be offensive.
This is one of those instances where an indivdiual's perception being a 180 from mine gets no beef from me.
However, that word "individual" has a lot of credence. It could be that an individual is comfortable enough in the progress of America that donning a slave outfit and smiling--having fun--during an event is acceptable in their mind.
I'm not sure if that makes them insensitive or simply makes the person taking offense too sensitive.
It reminds me of Bill Maher telling Amy Holmes that she should be offended Mitt Romney is a Mormom because she's "black."
Having studied individuality and personality in my life, I always happen to fall on the side of "that's just F'n ridiculous!"
But I am aware that it's a popular staple of America's mainstream that all minorities show deference to populous causes, one of which being the continued suffering of a years removed culture of captivity.
I guess these types of things exist wherever you may look for them. And by that standard, their existence altogether is called into question.
So, it's a shoulder shrugger to me. All I know is beads and sandals get no love from me.
Josh: It is possible that the blacks who dressed up in slave attire did so because they are comfortable enough in the progress of America. I wish I could play Jay Leno to their Hugh Grant and ask them, "What the hell were you thinking?!" Sadly, the answer could be that they weren't thinking.
Pjazzy: I heard that!
Post a Comment