As Americans we have been witnesses to the lack of respect directed towards President Obama from the very beginning. Some like to think that the criticism of the President comes from his party affiliation; however, the criticism is usually directed at his person, not his policies.  The lack of respect for the President that continues reflects more on a matter of perception rather than any policy or action. For example, even before the President had offered any plan for Congress to consider, the leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell made the statement that in essence his party’s chief object for the next four years was to see that President Obama serves only one term. What kind of message did that statement send to our children?

Later, during the President’s address to the Congress, one of the Representatives’, Joe Wilson, yelled the word “liar” directed at the President relative to one of his comments. This incident marked a first in recent times that a President would not only be interrupted during his speech but also be accused of lying. Rather than being disciplined by his colleagues, he was rewarded by some of his supporters with more than a million dollars in campaign funds. What lesson should our children learn for this experience?

The lack of respect for the President spilled over into the military briefly when a magazine article quoted Army General Stanley McChrystal making disparaging remarks about the President. Again, the focus of the remarks landed on the character of the President rather than concerns about policies or plans. This General showed little respect for the fact that the President is the Commander-in-Chief, his boss. Fortunately, since the General’s comments became part of the public record, they could not be ignored, so he was fired by the President. What lesson should our children learn from this experience?

In every one of these above mentioned incidents, the disrespect for the President was shown by European Americans, not that some African Americans have also made some contributions in this regard. However, the majority of the atypical behavior seems to come from individuals who refuse to see the President Obama as leader of the country and feel superior to him. They also feel at liberty to act on their perceptions. When they execute their behavior, they evidently give little thought to how their words and actions will affect the children. The fact that they have not been called to answer for their lack of decency regarding the President shows a problem that Schieffer addressed in his comments.

What prompted Schieffer to make his comments involved a picture of the Arizona Governor Jan Brewer poking her finger in President Obama’s face. The focus of the problem reflected by this gesture, according to Schieffer, is “not a Democratic or Republican issue, but a question of how the Office of the president is treated.” He continues by saying “This is just another sign of the incivility and really the vulgarity of modern American campaigns. These campaigns have gotten so ugly and so nasty, that they’re tarnishing the whole system.” Rather than speaking to the President’s ethnicity as part of the problem, Schieffer says “I think it also underlines the coarseness of our culture in this age of social media when it is so easy to say anything about anybody and get no penalty for saying it.”

He could have easily been making a reference to the comment someone made about Newt Gingrich “putting in his place” Juan Williams, an African American correspondent who questioned Newt about his ex-wife’s comments on open marriage. In essence, Williams should not have taken that liberty with Newt, a European American. The statement regarding “putting someone in his place” had never been made regarding any questions posed by other correspondents. No one made reference to the fact that it reflected Newt’s ethnically superior attitude towards Williams until much later.

Schieffer’s concluding comments brought to mind the impression that the disrespectful actions and words regarding the President might have on our children. He said that “The thing that has always made our system so strong is that whatever we have thought of the office holders, we have held the offices themselves in high respect. We have respected the office.” Then he ends with “I’ve watched a lot of presidents over the years but I can never recall a president stepping off Air Force One, which is itself a symbol of the presidency and American democracy, and being subject to such rudeness. I think really we’re a better people than this little incident illustrates.”

We would all like to think that we are better people, but until we start speaking out and teaching our children that being respectful is the only acceptable behavior, we will have to contend with these public examples.  And believe it on not, children will learn from our examples, respectful or disrespectful.

Fast-forward one hundred and two years later, where we learn that “On April 11, 1968 U. S. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1968, also known as the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968. Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 is commonly known as the Fair Housing Act.” One of the reasons for this act was to supply the enforcement provisions that were lacking in the 1866 act. We know that “The 1968 act expanded on previous acts and prohibited discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, religion, national origin, and since 1974, gender; since 1988, the act protects people with disabilities and families with children.” Other provisions of the act protect civil rights workers as well.

So, one might ask, why the history references to Fair Housing? Well, evidently, some people still believe these laws were not meant for them. Since they identify themselves as white citizens, they should be able to ignore the laws and discriminate at will. Fortunately, better informed citizens became involved in a particular incident to help resolve the problem in part.  The story involves “A Cincinnati landlord who claimed a black girl’s hair product clouded an apartment complex’s swimming pool.” She “discriminated against the child by posting a poolside ‘White Only’ sign.” We learned that the Ohio Civil Rights Commission voted 4-0 in favor of the child, recognizing that she had experienced discrimination.

According the article in the Associated Press (1/13/12), “The parents filed a discrimination charge with the commission and moved out of the duplex in the racially diverse city to ‘avoid subjecting their family to further humiliating treatment.” The landowner’s reason for posting the sign was “I was trying to protect my assets.” When we take a moment to examine her comments we discover that she was being very clear about her actions and motive.

In her mind, African Americans do not belong in the same swimming pool as European Americans. The reference to some chemical in the child’s hair causing the water to be cloudy is too week an argument to support logic. The child would have had to have an enormous head and an equal amount of chemicals to make the water in an entire swimming pool cloudy. We see that argument as silly. Her motive, on the other hand, tells us that she believes that her ability to earn a living because African Americans in the complex swimming pool might negatively affect her business. Which raises the question of why did she rent to them in the first place if she thought they would be bad for business. Maybe she thought they would not use the pool. In any event, she felt she had the right to post a “White Only” sign on the pool gate to resolve her problem. She was wrong.

While the landowner was misguided in her attempt to allow admission of African Americans in the swimming pool, she truly believed that she was in her rights. Most likely many other European Americans would support her today given the tenor of the times. When a society tells someone that he or she is special and privileged because of his or her skin color– white, and then pass laws underscoring those ideas, chances are the person will believe what he and she have heard and are told. What happened when the Fair Housing laws were passed regarding citizen rights and privileges, they were identified as those privileges and rights already enjoyed by the so-called white citizens. In effect, the laws never said that the original laws were incorrect, only everyone would now be able to enjoy “the same rights as the white citizens.”

Many European Americans have never been confronted with the idea that they were misled into believing that their skin color was only a ploy used by the elite to control them, and have them serve as a buffer to deflect legitimate criticism regarding political, economic, and social power the elite controlled. Even today, all a politician has to do to gain support from a certain segment of society is to complain that some so-called unworthy people (read as African Americans, minority and poor) are receiving benefits for free that real Americans (European Americans—whites) must work to receive. This statement will be interpreted as a call to join the speaker in protecting the loss privileges and rights by those who still hold on to that idea of specialness based of color.

Enacting laws that seek to change past injustices does not mean the attitudes and beliefs of the people negatively affected will change for the better. For the most part, they probably feel victimized; when in reality they have enjoyed exclusive rights and privileges for many years.

Many time educators with good intentions can created ill result by failing to prepare carefully and thoroughly the material to be taught. While the idea of using social history in a math class is generally a good idea, the selection of the material to be employed should be the top priority. What the educators in the above referenced incident did not do was prepare properly. They did not consider if the affect of the information presented was offensive in any way because it was taken from social history. But if we examine what was taken from the history, we discover that the information promotes and sustains the idea of African American inferiority and European American superiority. What is generally taught in history about Frederick Douglass was his contribution to the civil rights of African Americans and women, his meetings with President Lincoln to convince him to allow African Americans to serve in the military during the Civil War. He was so successful that the Army created the 9^th and 10^th Calvary—all African American soldiers. Because the questions all chose to picture Douglass as a slave, they did a disservice to his story.

With proper preparation the educators could have selected aspects of the social history that presented a positive construction of Douglass. Since the question did not identify the ethnicity of the slaves everyone would assume they were African.  During the early years of slavery, American Indians as well as European Americans were slaves. The reference in the questions easily suggests they were African /African American. Proper preparation would dictate that all students receive positive reinforcement from the experience. The objectives of the questions should be on enhancing and learning the subject-matter, not picturing the historical vehicles employed in an unflattering context.

Once the homework questions are created, the execution of the exam should not cause undue stress on the students. The questions referenced above could have actually caused emotional problems for students, regardless of the ethnicity. For example, the questions about Douglass showed him as a victim, a slave and therefore in an inferior condition. Since Douglass serves as a representative for African Americans chances are many of the African American students recognized inferiority underscored in Douglass. On the other hand, the abuse and forced labor of Douglass and the slaves in general, come at the hands of European Americans and serve to represent superiority. Obviously, no one is suggesting that the questions were written deliberately with this in mind, but the results are the same regardless of the intent. What if a question stated “Benjamin Franklin fathered one and one-third, out-of-wedlock child per year? How many children would he have fathered in five years? “ Where would the real emphasis lie in that question? Certainly not on the number of children but on Franklin because of his notoriety. That type of question would probably distract from the pedagogical objective and therefore be ineffective as an instrument of learning.

Generally speaking, most homework is given by the educators to measure the progress of the students’ learning and control of the subject-matter. An expectation is established for each question as well as for the entire experience. One wonders just what the expectations were for the students doing the homework in question. The reported response of the spokeswoman that “This is simply a case of creating a bad question, “shows a number of things lacking with the educator. For one, a lack of sensitivity for African American students who would have the concept of inferiority underscored. Another would be the lack of a considered expectation due to the nature of the question’s objective—not just the number of beating received, but the number that Douglass received. Still another concern is the lack of educational preparedness on the part of the educator relative to the sensitivity of the diverse students in the classroom and the affect that that disregard for feelings have on the non-African American students.

Most parents expect the school their children attend to reflect an atmosphere of safety and comfort from undue stress. In addition, they want to believe that the schools value each student’s physical and mental well-being. When incidents like the one in question occurs, the parents are well within their rights to complain and demand to know what is at work. After all, had the parents not reacted the way they did, one doubts that the educator as well as the school would have ever realized that what they were doing was in fact counterproductive to a wholesome education. By calling attention to the problem, the educator as well as the students can benefit from the changes to come, and the parents can re-establish their expectations for their children’s education, but always with watchful eyes.

First, we learn that Santorum is not current on his social awareness regarding race and ethnicity. We know this by his reference to “black people.” The problem with using that term is no one knows if he meant it as a racial identity or an ethnic identity. Either one would be an incorrect usage because color does not indicate race or ethnicity. If his intent was to single out African Americans, then he should have used that term. In any event, the reference to black people suggests he possible conceives of black people as a monolith that he can control as President. That concept of thought lacks a basis in the reality of America today.

Next, Santorum’s statement suggests that black people, African Americans, are making their lives better by using someone else’s money, and he wants to put a stop to that. Why would he assume that all African Americans in America do nothing but wait around for someone (read as European Americans) to hand to them their hard-earned money?  The suggestion in that statement is that all African Americans are on welfare and Medicaid, entities supposedly supported exclusively by European American money. That being the case, he wants to put a stop to that unfair treatment of hard-working European Americans.  Santorum as well as the rest of the country know that slanting language that creates images of African Americans taking advantage of hard-working European American citizens is a form of bigotry. The fact of the matter is that European Americans represent the majority of welfare and Medicaid recipients in America. In addition, all the African Americans represent only 12% of the total population and certainly not all are receiving welfare and Medicaid assistance. So, we can see the purpose of the statement was to create an unfavorable image of African Americans or as he sees them, black people, serving as an enemy of working Americans.

Since African Americans presently do not work to earn their money, according to Santorum, his goal is to give them an opportunity to do just that—“go out and earn the money.”One wonders what world is Santorum living in these days where a significant number of so-called black people are given money for just being black—not having to work for it. If we follow Santorum’s line of thinking that is what he suggests is happening now. He wants to provide them (the black people)the opportunity to work and earn their money. We might suggest that he stop for a moment and look to see who is the President, Attorney General, the President’s Assistant, to identify a few African Americans who are very visible and who are earning their money.  The picture he paints is one of all African Americans standing with their hands out waiting for the European American citizens to place their hard-earned money in them. In addition, Santorum’s statement suggests that many jobs are available, but the African Americans do not want the opportunity to earn their money when it will be given to them. To purposefully create such a false image is not only biased but deceitful as well.

Whether it was his intention are not to create such an unchristian, undemocratic, and unjust picture of so-called black people taking advantage of European Americans the results were the same—creating animosity for African Americans for taking something that is not rightfully theirs. Why would someone believe that he must create an enemy to fight in order to win the favor and support of certain voters? Would that ploy qualify as race-baiting or would it be accepted as politics as usual? Evidently, when some politicians are in an audience of look-alike people, they seem to feel comfortable and safe enough to test the waters of bigotry to gather folks to their side. Would not the issues do the same thing? If a candidate is offering the voters something they need and/ or want, chances are they will come to his support, at least that what common sense suggests.

We in America are not experiencing a time when common sense dictates our political actions when the head of the Republican party in the Senate, shortly after President Obama’s election, made the statement that his first priority was to make Obama a one-term president. In other words, regardless of what the President did, the only important thing was to defeat him at all cost. Following that statement and all the actions by Congress to make it a reality, we find the comments of Santorum to be in keeping with the Republican Party’s leadership. If the country can be made to view African Americans as the enemy, then the changes of Obama winning a second term would be slim to none. The elements of character, integrity, honesty, and decency are no longer necessary or expected from a candidate for President; he just has to belong to the right party or be the right color. Wow! What a sensible concept; just what we want to teach our children.

Here’s an excerpt:

A New York City subway train holds 1,200 people. This blog was viewed about 4,200 times in 2011. If it were a NYC subway train, it would take about 4 trips to carry that many people.

Click here to see the complete report.

Johnson writes about two experiences where stereotypical concepts of well-dressed African American men were used with him as the victim. One experience he apparently viewed as negative, the other as positive. The first experience occurred when he was standing the in the lobby of a classy hotel in Washington, D.C. and he is mistaken for a bellman by a European American man. The man approached him with “’Hey boy, get my bags.’ In doing so he stuck out toward me a fist full of hotel baggage claim tickets. Going along with the man, I smiled and said in reply, ‘Yes sir.’”This experience Johnson referred to as a lesson in tolerance because he did not take the opportunity to correct the perception of the man regarding him as a bellman.

The second experience encountered by Jackson involved several young European American Interns in an elevator who mistook Johnson and a colleague as congressmen.  This experience was viewed by Johnson as positive, but again, he made no effort to correct the misconception. To allow the Interns to think of him and his associate as congressmen was not a lesson in tolerance; in fact, it was a failed opportunity to correct a false image.

In the first incident where Johnson is approached in the hotel lobby by a European American man and given a claim ticket, Johnson missed an opportunity to correct a stereotypical image of African Americans men. The European American man apparently thought the only reason for a well-dressed African American man to be standing in the lobby of a Four-star hotel was to be employed as a bellman. Therefore, he does not hesitate to go to him and give him the claim ticket and refer to Johnson as a boy: “Hey boy, get my bags.” Johnson could have taken the opportunity to challenge that stereotype and refused to accept the claim ticket while informing the European American that he too was a customer and to look elsewhere for a bellman. Johnson’s by accepting the claim ticket, in effect, supported, encouraged, and promoted the negative stereotypical concept held by the European American that all well-dressed African American men standing in a hotel lobby are bell hops, not customers. This experience was not a lesson in tolerance.

In the second incident, Johnson allows some young European Americans Interns working in the capitol to think of him and his colleague as congressmen. Since Johnson took an elevator generally reserved for congressmen where he met these young interns, the general impression taken for him and his friend was that they are congressmen. Johnson does nothing to dispel this incorrect image. He instead, led these young people to think that if African American men are well-dressed and riding an elevator reserved for congressmen, then they must be congressmen and not ordinary people.

Again, Johnson missed an opportunity to challenge a stereotype by not telling the young European Americans the truth or at least that he was not a congressman. Instead, he contributed to the false concept of well-dressed African American men being congressmen held by the Interns.  This experience was not a lesson in tolerance. Johnson seems to think that if the African American was not seen in a negative light that all was well. Unfortunately, whether the concept was positive or negative, if it was incorrect and supports a stereotype, it should be challenged.

For Johnson to call his experiences lessons in tolerance is a mistake, because these experiences did not contain any sense of tolerance. What was tolerated? The stereotypical concepts of African Americans held by the European American were not challenged or changed and consequently, will occur over and over again, thanks to Johnson’s lack of constructive action. What Johnson seemingly calls tolerance can easily be seen as passive acceptance. Had Johnson in the first incident refused the claims from the man who took him to be a bell hop, he would have challenged that man’s stereotypical concept of well-dressed African American men standing in the lobby of a four-star hotel being bell hops. That action could be seen as a lesson in tolerance—allowing the European American to break through his pre-conceived concept to a new and informed one of the African American male.

What was troubling about Johnson’s experiences and his reactions to them was the fact that he never realized that he contributed to the stereotypes held by the various European Americans he encountered during these incidents. He believed that his lack of action should be interpreted as lessons in tolerance when they should be seen for what they were—failed opportunities to correct misconception about well-dressed African American men. A long as African Americans take the path of Johnson by ignoring the opportunity to address a false conception by European Americans, these false conceptions will continued unchecked. Letting the opportunities go unchallenged is not tolerance, it is a form of indifference.

While Johnson’s experiences might appear to be inconsequential on the surface, they in effect, represent a troubling situation in America. For Johnson’s experiences to be considered as lessons in tolerance the European Americans should have walked away from the experience with a different, more  accurate and acceptable view of African Americans outside of the stereotype. Tolerance suggests open-mindedness, something Johnson did not display. He actually supported the status quo by choosing non-action over corrective action. By Johnson not taking the opportunity to correct a misconceptions, nobody benefits from the experiences—not Johnson, not the European Americans. Whether in America or on Mars, not correcting a false impression or false concept of one’s self image is a missed opportunity—not a lesson in tolerance.

If Thomas had progressed far enough in his study of history, he would understand that victorious countries do not fly the flags in honor of the countries they defeated, for what should be the obvious reason—they lost the war. In addition, the flag conjures up many negative and painful emotions that could lead to resentment, hatred, and anger. He must acquaint himself with the history before he jumps to the conclusion that no hard will is created by flying the Confederate flag. He needs to read about the Reconstruction period from a number of perspectives—at least from one that tells about the Black Codes and how they were implemented relative to African Americans. He also might want to visit with some mature African Americans for their opinions relative to flying the Confederate flag today.

Thomas needs to know that the Confederate flag is a symbol of the inhumane treatment of African Americans by the South. The South resented the fact that the North would not accept slavery as a feature of American democracy. Having slaves made America appear hypocritical to the world. African Americans were viewed as the primary cause of the war, so the South sought to make them pay by intimidations, discrimination, physical abuse and murder. The Constitution had already defined the slave as less than human –three-fifths a man. The reference to slave in the Constitution was translated as Negroes, blacks, coloreds or any slave of African ancestry. These are a few of the things Thomas needs to know in order for him to gain a better understanding of the symbolism of the Confederate flag.

For many African Americans, seeing the Confederate flag displayed serves as a reminder of the lack of respect that the South had for them as human beings. To display it today would mean that one is not aware of the symbolism it carries or else he or she knows, but still want to communicate that same negative message.

The history associated with the Confederate flag cannot be erased any more than the history associated with the Nazi swastika. To understand and appreciate history, one must first learn it, something Thomas has yet to experience. Had he studies American history and the specific parts played in it by African Americans, he would realize the debt he owes to all the people who sacrificed so that today he can attend a predominantly European American university in the South. He owes it to them and himself to get the best education available to him, but one that includes his story and not just history.

From some of the comments he made concerning the incident, we can surmise his youth and innocence. For example, he said that “he’s unhappy about such things as labels, and he doesn’t like the term “African-American,’ which makes him feel like ‘a half-citizen,’ since he wasn’t born in Africa.” If he would take a moment and think about his self image, he would realize that being labeled as black says absolutely nothing about who he is. The label black, along with Negro, colored, and slave were all given to Africans as well as African Americans by the majority. These labels were given to them to deprive them of the knowledge of who they really were—not labels, but human beings with personal identities that disclosed their ethnicity, culture, and history. One does not have to be born in Germany or England to have ancestry from those countries. The same applies to the continent of Africa.

Thomas mentioned that his parents didn’t like his actions with the flag, which should have given him a clue about the appropriateness of his displaying it in his dorm window. In addition, the school missed a teachable moment when it failed to do its job; first, by telling him to take down the flag, then, by telling him it was okay to put it back in the window. No reason for each action was given. As a result of his ignorance and arrogance, Thomas was made to look like an uninformed young fool. We can only hope that he learns from this experience about acting on too little information.

What Thomas needs to recognize about his actions is that he participates in denigrating himself without knowing it. By displaying the flag in his dorm room he is saying, in essence, that he agrees with all the negative stereotypes of African Americans created by a bigoted South and symbolized by the Confederate flag. He supports all the flag symbolizes. In so doing, he is exposing himself to things which he knows nothing about. Again, the reference to a little learning being a dangerous thing is underscored in the words and action of Thomas. Someone needs to send him an Ebony or a Jet magazine.

The problem started when Stella Harville, a European American (white) female brought her African fiancé, Ticha Chikuni, to church with her. We are told that on one visit Chikuna sang a song for the congregation. The church board member who offered the resolution, Melvin Thompson, made the statement “I am not a racist. I will tell you that. I am not prejudiced against any race of people, have never in my lifetime spoke evil about a race.”In his mind and heart, Thompson believes he has done nothing wrong or unchristian. How can that be?

First, we need to make clear a number of points. First, Ticha Chikuni is an African, not a black. Although the article did not mention his cultural identity, we know that he is not African American. Chances are he would be the first to correct anyone making that mistake. Next, we are dealing with people to take their religion seriously. Finally, we are dealing with some people who are still living in the 1800’s relative to their beliefs and behavior.

Because of the confusion and the false information regarding the concept of race, many people still identify some people’s ethnicity on the bases of their skin color. Make no mistake, that concept of regarding race by color has been in existence since slavery, and as noted in the article, it still exist today. The church is regarded by most observers as the most segregated institution in America. One reason for that segregation can be traced back to some clergy who were warriors for segregation, discrimination, and bigotry. They used the Bible and their biased interpretations, along with some creativity, to underscore their point. One clergy in point was Josiah Strong (1846-1916) who believed, preached and wrote about how “God, nature, science, and history all legitimated white supremacy over black people.”

Many other prominent clergy, scientist, and doctors promoted the concept of the so-called black race being created differently from the so-called white race. The arguments were presented so well and so often that most European Americans did not question the legitimacy of the information, and like their religion itself, they internalize the concept of race as truth. Although religion is based on belief and race is available for scientific investigation, when the concept of race is presented as if it were a religion, argument is fruitless.

Thompson can state that he is not a racist because he does not see any problem with rejecting someone not of his so-called race. His biblical teachings and the word from many clergy would free him from any sense of wrong-doing. The fact that he has been taught that being white made one superior over nonwhites underscores his ability and right to refuse to worship with any nonwhite person. Rather then his religious beliefs keeping pace with the changing times, socially and historically, Thompson and those who supported him possibly feel comfortable and protected in their religious belief even when it goes against the general precepts of Christianity.  Part of the problem with being identified as a racist is the fact that race has not been defined clearly other than in scientific terms. Rather than clarifying the confusion of race, society continues to add to it.

The media referred to the couple in its articles as being “interracial” or “mixed-race.”Neither term is accurate or correct in trying to identify the couple. When the couple is identified by color, that description is incorrect because Chikuni is African, not black; that is he is not black unless one conceives of all people with dark complexions as blacks or of a black race . If Harville is identified as white, then one must assume that white is a race as well as African; that is the only way the couple can accommodate the descriptions. What the media has to understand is that a racist cannot exist in isolation. When a person is called a racist, he or she has to be viewed as a representative of a larger group known as a race. If mankind consists of only one race, then no other races exist for comparisons. The problem still involves ignorance and bigotry. If the people who are aware of the fallacy of the race conception continue to address people who are ignorant and/or bigots as racist, they are, in effect, supporting and promoting the fallacy.

When a bigot is called a racist, the mere word underscores his beliefs in so-called racial supremacy, and offers security and protection within his so-called racial group. However, when one is referred to as a bigot, then the full impact of the charge falls squarely on the individual, not a group. A bigot would prefer to be called a racist because that gives aid and comfort to his beliefs.  What reasonable and knowledgeable people must understand is that they are part of the problem if they do not recognize and correct the fallacy of race, racist, and racism.

Many Americans are discovering since the election of President Obama that the social progress thought to have been made since the 1960s in some cases is just an illusion. Who would have thought that today in America a so-called Christian church would refuse to accept children of their God simply because one child  does not look alike the rest of the people? That makes one wonder what heaven will look like.

Limbaugh reacting to the NASCAR fan booing Mrs. Obama and Dr. Biden, he identifies himself with the NASCAR fans and states that the booing was justified and deserved because of some of President Obama’s policies. He goes on to add “We don’t like being told what to eat.” How does being told what to eat fall into the category of an Obama policy? Rush evidently confuses Mrs. Obama’s program on nutrition for the children with a presidential policy. No one is told what to eat, but children as well as adults are provided information concerning eating the right foods.

Next, Rush speaking again for the car fans says “We don’t like being told how much to exercise.” No presidential policy for exercising exists that tells people to exercise. Rush confuses the First Lady’s concern with childhood obesity with some imagined policy. He also assumes that President Obama is the person fostering this program. He is mistaken, most First Ladies, regardless of who is President usually becomes involved in programs separate from what their husbands are doing. That is the case with Mrs. Obama.

Rush continues speaking for the car fans by offering the comment “We don’t like being told what we’ve got to drive.”Who does Rush think is telling Americans what to drive? As an entertainer Rush has a very wild imagination, and he uses it to create scenarios that he believes will cater to the emotions of the car fans. He believes he has his finger on the pulse of their thoughts and emotions which allows him to represent them.

Basically, what Rush has said speaking for the fans is that they do like being told to do anything. What Rush is really saying is that he resents Mrs. Obama being the First Lady, and anything she stands for would be unacceptable to him. She is an African American, and according to Rush, African Americans do not have the intelligence to tell a European American anything. Of course Rush would not come right out and say that; hiding behind the fans is too easy to let pass. The information being offered through the programs began by Mrs. Obama can be considered valuable and offered in good faith. Rush, looking through the eyes of a bigot can only see an African American telling European Americans what is good for them, and this Rush detests.

Next, Rush shifts to focus from what Mrs. Obama and her husband are supposedly telling the American citizens to what the NARCAR fans and Rush simply do not like: “ We don’t like wasting money. We don’t like our economy being bankrupted. We don’t like 14 percent unemployment.”Neither does President Obama like any of those things. However, Rush suggests that these are the reasons that the NASCAR fans booed Mrs. Obama and Dr. Biden. Again, these concerns, exaggerated as they are, reflect Rush’s concerns, not the fans, many of who can care less about the business of Congress. They were interested in the auto race.

Rush gets a little closer to what he really wants to say, and that is, he wants to deride the Obama’s for doing  anything that does not label them as stereotypical African Americans. Anything that resembles common sense and decency is off limits for them as far as Rush is concerned. While continuing to hide behind the protection of the NASCAR fans, he states that “NASCAR people—as are most people in this country—are mature, tolerant people who fully understand when they’re being insulted and condescended to.”He continues, “And they remember being called bitter clingers. They know that in their hearts, the Obamas don’t like them. We’ve taken notice of this.” If anyone wants to see what a hate-monger is, they only have to look at Rush. His intense hostility of the Obamas and desire to cause them hurt in the public’s eye by creating these negative scenarios is self-evident. They can do no right, and everything they do is seemingly an affront decent, patriotic, Christian, American citizen.

Finally, Rush says what is really behind his storm of hate-filled charges against the Obama’s. Rush say the appearance of Mrs. Obama is viewed as an insult to the NASCAR fans and adds “They understand it is a little bit of uppity-ism.” Rush’s use of the word “uppity” gives away the reason for his contempt for the President and his wife. The word “uppity” has usually been reserved to describe the behavior of African Americans who are seen trying to mimic the ways and manners of the higher class European American. In effect, the actions of Mrs. Obama and Dr. Biden in promoting a program of aid American veterans and their families are viewed as presumptuous by Rush, and the people he supposedly represents, the NASCAR fans. The only problem is that only one of the ladies can behave in an “uppity” fashion—that would be Mrs. Obama.

To Rush, any actions of African Americans that would place them in the category of a normal, sensible and decent human being is a threat to his safety and self-worth. His 1800s mindset makes him the watchman for the bigots who live in daily fear of loosing their so-called white privilege and power. Chances are, many of the NASCAR fans would prefer to speak for themselves, and not have Rush hide behind them to escape being singled-out for his hatred of the Obama’s and the doom and destruction they have planned for America.

Regardless of many comments to the contrary, slavery was one of , if not the most, important factor of the Civil War. Many southern people blamed the slaves for their having to go to war in the first place. Next, they blamed the slaves for forcing the South to recognize the rights of the freedmen, a penalty that cut to the quick. The fact that the southerners as well as Northerners would have to acknowledge and accept the humanity of the freedmen was asking a little too much. The power and privileges of the European Americans were called into question when the African Americans were granted liberties and freedoms equal to theirs. These southern European Americans believed that every liberty and freedom granted to the former slaves involved a liberty and freedom taken from them. So, for many European Americans, just the sight of an African American reminds them of what they have lost and are still loosing.

When the 1964 Civil Rights Act was signed into law, many European Americans believed that all the power and privilege of being European American (white) was  being taken away. For many of them, their identity of being European American (white) was the only thing of value they had left. Many avenues of approach were set in motion to try and retain some of those privileges, especially with respect to housing, jobs, and education. For example, when the Supreme Court declared that the schools were separate and unequal, and must be desegregated, many European Americans, who could afford it, moved to the suburbs, where they could re-segregate themselves. What many of these European Americans did not understand is that African Americans did not want to go to school with them or live with them because they were European Americans, African Americans simply wanted to enjoy the same rights and privileges they enjoyed. Unfortunately, segregation meant separate and unequal treatment for African Americans, but desegregation was viewed by some European Americans as a loss of their rights.

After the Civil Rights Acts of the ‘60s, and especially, the introduction of affirmative actions programs, many European Americans felt that the government had taken away all the power and prestige that goes with being European American. So, anger and fear set in and became the two powerful emotions that directed the actions of those who felt a defeat. The efforts of many European Americans who felt a loss went into creating places and activities that catered to them only. Some of these places and activities were both secular and religious. The attitudes of these European Americans were not as extreme as some of the hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan or the Aryan Nation, but they were nonetheless pro segregation.

So, what does all this have to do with Mrs. Obama being booed at the Ford 400? She represented the symbol of the cause of European American  power and privileges being taken away. One of the primary features of having a European American (white) identity is the superiority over any and all non European Americans. With President Obama as the leader of the country, the element of superiority over all non European Americans is called into question. If they were to accept Obama as President, then they would have to acknowledge that he was above them. If they accept that he is above them, they lose their superiority. So, they must protest and fight to retain what they see as their rightful place that is being taken from them by non European ethnic Americans, especially, African Americans.

Michelle’s appearance at the NASCAR event was to many European Americans an invasion of their privacy in that they view NASCAR activities as belonging to them only. These events represent their places of comfort where they can be themselves, i.e.…tell ethnic jokes and voice their displeasure about what they feel is happening to them without the fear of negative repercussions. They feel comfortable, safe, and protected  in the company of their own kind. If they could, some of them would hang a “whites only” sign of the entry gates to their activities. Too many of these people forget who they are and where they are. They are Americans, living in America. If they do not understand what that means, then they have no sense of place or value.

Had the people who booed Michelle realized what she was doing at this NASCAR activity, common decency would have compelled them to applaud her and the country’s efforts  regarding the U.S. veterans. But, when people are consumed with fear and anger, their brains have no room for common sense. Their primary concern is to hold on to the misguided concepts of what America is supposed to be in their eyes. What these unfortunate people do not realize is that their actions underscore their ignorance and bigotry much more than it serves as a protest for their imagined losses. The fact of the matter is that they have not lost anything essential to democracy; they simply regret the fact that they must now share with other Americans the rights and privileges they have enjoyed all along.