Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
You've probably already heard about the little mini-drama kicked off by President Obama's daughter Malia wearing a t-shirt with a peace symbol recently. But the wingnuts at Free Republic went absolutely apeshit over it in a thread that has since been removed, then restored, then removed again. The racist idiots came out of the woodwork to say things like this:
"A typical street whore."
"A bunch of ghetto thugs."
"Ghetto street trash."
"Wonder when she will get her first abortion."
And as the Vancouver Sun notes:
The thread was accompanied by a photo of Michelle Obama speaking to Malia that featured the caption, "To entertain her daughter, Michelle Obama loves to make monkey sounds."
As the tone of the comments became more and more racist and violent in nature, the response of the site's management was to first ignore it, then pull down the thread, then put it back up and actually join the fun.
Though this may sound like the sort of thing one might read on an Aryan Nation or white power website, they actually appeared on what is commonly considered one of the prime online locations for U.S. Conservative grassroots political discussion and organizing - and for a short time, the comments seemed to have the okay of site administrators.Moderators of the blog left the comments - and commenters - in place until a complaint was lodged by a writer doing research on the conservative movement, almost a full day later.
"Could you imagine what world leaders must be thinking seeing this kind of street trash and that we paid for this kind of street ghetto trash to go over there?" wrote one commenter.
"They make me sick .... The whole family... mammy, pappy, the free loadin' mammy-in-law, the misguided chillin', and especially 'lil cuz... This is not the America I want representin' my peeps," wrote another.
Such was the onslaught of derision on the site that the person who originally complained about the slurs, a Kristin N., claims only one comment in the first hundred posted actually criticized the remarks as inappropriate.
A note on the front of the blog reads, "Free Republic does not advocate or condone racism, violence, rebellion, secession, or an overthrow of the government," but one comment on the thread read, "This disgusting display makes me more and more eager for the revolution," while another read, "I never actually wnated [sic] to be a pistol before but..."
After attention from other blogs, the thread was suppressed and placed under review, but before long it was returned to the site intact, and attracted a new series of racial slurs when the original complaint email was posted publicly to the site, with the sender's email address intact.
"The writer has a point," wrote site owner Jim Thompson sarcastically. "We should steer clear of Obama's children. They can't help it if their old man is an American-hating Marxist pig."
"I agree Jim," wrote commenter, by the nickname NoobRep. "The kids didn't pick their commie pinko pansy of a father. Nor did they choose to be put into the spotlight. But Obama/Soetoro is fair game and so is his witch of a wife."
"Poor kids. I hope they're not 'punished with a baby'," wrote another. "Hopefully they won't deal cocaine like the Kenyan."
"DIRTBAGS! All of them. Our [White House] is now a joke to the rest of the world. We have no respect and this is not going to turn out well, mark my words. We will be hit, and much worse than last time. We are now seen as weak and vulnerable. Ghetto and Chicago thugs have taken over."
Only after significant negative attention from a host of left wing political blogs did the maintainers of the Free Republic site place the thread under review for a second time, before finally pulling it.
A few regulars there did complain about the racism and violence being expressed, but only a few. Sadly, this is quite typical of that site.
Politics
Comments
Freepers - keepin' it classy. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 16, 2009 10:14 AM
FYI for non-Canadians: when a Sun chain newspaper thinks a conservative site has crossed the line, you know it's well into batshit insane territory.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | July 16, 2009 10:15 AM
I am totally ashamed to be an American, if this is the type of people we have in the country now. The first family has gained more respect and good will for America than the last idiot did in 8 years. All the rethugs did was cost America what ever respect and good will it had and it will be long time before it will be gained back. The only street trash are the assheads that wrote that blog and the idiots that wrote the comments
Posted by: Ex Partiate | July 16, 2009 10:18 AM
I think one of the most valuable, positive consequences of free speech is the ability to see just how bat s**t crazy your neighbor is.
If you want to evaluate how credible someone's opinion is, the best way to go about it is to let them speak their mind, no holds barred.
Posted by: eric | July 16, 2009 10:23 AM
I hadn't heard about this "mini-drama" before now, actually. What set it off originally? The picture does not seem much different from any other picture. There's nothing particularly shocking or special about it, but it seems like something must have ticked these people off even more than usual.
Posted by: rob | July 16, 2009 10:26 AM
Or am I being too generous assuming that it takes more than black person + nappy hair + peace symbol to bring out the crazies?
Posted by: rob | July 16, 2009 10:29 AM
Free Republic has to be the most useless sight on the interwebs -- the comments are even dumber than 4chan, and there's no cool pix.
Rt
Posted by: Roadtripper | July 16, 2009 10:32 AM
The seething rage and resentment is palpable, and all over a peace sign on a child's shirt. Their reactions to this little girl's t-shirt contain it all: racism, misogyny, absolute terror of liberalism/conciliation/"hippies," a sense of American supremacy, etc. I think this single incident reveals so much more about Freepers/RWAs than anything else in recent memory.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 16, 2009 10:33 AM
"I hadn't heard about this 'mini-drama' before now, actually. What set it off originally?"
Nothing set it off. The first family is African-American; conservatism is infested with racism. The rest follows.
Posted by: Woody Tanaka | July 16, 2009 10:35 AM
The author, Chris Parry, is an idiot:
Hate Speech Against Malia Obama On Conservative Blogs
It gets worse, though. Chris Parry, it appears, has advocated on his Daily Kos blog any number of egregious offenses, among them: posting hate speech on sites like Free Republic and blaming it on conservatives.
Just what the Freepers need, doubt.
Posted by: nal | July 16, 2009 10:38 AM
"It gets worse, though. Chris Parry, it appears, has advocated on his Daily Kos blog any number of egregious offenses, among them: posting hate speech on sites like Free Republic and blaming it on conservatives."
For the record, the "evidence" that Gawker cites that Chris Parry advocated any such thing was a single comment (not a blog post, just a comment on somebody else's blog post) he made at dkos that looked like this:
Bloody
Useless
Sack of
Hatred
Can
He
Eat
Negro
Eyes
Yet
Blaming
Republicans
Only
Works
Now
Personally, I don't think that proves much of anything, because I can't make much sense of the poem. Gawker seems to think it is some kind of call to arms to plant racist comments on conservative blogs, but if so those wiley liberals must be using some secret code I am not privy to.
Posted by: rob | July 16, 2009 10:46 AM
rob, freepers are permanently angry and afraid, they require very little provocation. This episode isn't an odd thing for freepers or the red state trike force. Somebody could contrast that w/ having to sift through thousands upon thousands of dkos diaries and countless comments in order to find a handful of people not being super nice to Tony Snow, but I digress.
Lately, w/ what seems like every political issue in the US being reduced by what's left of the republican base to, "HAW HAW HE A DARKY!" I've been wondering if the majority of republicans were always this racist, if the racists are the only ones who haven't left, if they've become racist recently or if they're just so angry that they want to hurt Obama et al as badly as they can and screaming racial epithets is the worst thing they can think of.
Posted by: tincture | July 16, 2009 10:46 AM
This episode isn't an odd thing for freepers or the red state trike force.
I figured it must be unusual for it to get so much attention. If it's typical, why all the hullabaloo?
Posted by: rob | July 16, 2009 10:49 AM
zOMG! A peace sign? How terrible. Of course it's a gang symbol because gangs only care about peace, amirite? Honestly, I rarely resort to calling people stupid, but there is just no other word to describe this. Couldn't they try to justify their racism any better? It's like they're not even trying anymore.
Posted by: catgirl | July 16, 2009 10:52 AM
I retract my previous comment about Chris Parry. That Gawker update wasn't there when I first read the thread. The evidence against Parry is ridiculously weak.
Posted by: nal | July 16, 2009 10:58 AM
to tincture at #12
I wonder how many of these idiots had parents or grandparents that were Dixiecrat Democrats that turned Republican.
Posted by: rnb | July 16, 2009 11:02 AM
Fucked if I know, slow news day + it's just funny? arcticshadow, Eclectablog & The Red Pen always have the funny stuff.
I read that gawker article and can't see how a pointless mnemonic is advocating fucking w/ freepers. Not that it matters, there was a headline saying it, the headline has been corrected but the call will go on. The whole thing is another false flag by liberals, they do everything bad dontchaknow?
Posted by: tincture | July 16, 2009 11:04 AM
Nay, Roadtripper, freerepublic.com is very useful. It provides a good window into the ugly heart of America's right wing.
Posted by: Russell | July 16, 2009 11:05 AM
Nay, Roadtripper, freerepublic.com is very useful. It provides a good window into the ugly heart of America's right wing.
Agreed. Someone has to keep tabs on these people, as their hateful frothing at the mouth very often underlies violent fantasies.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 16, 2009 11:07 AM
That was @ rob #13. Edit button plzkthxkluvuiaiashubniggurath.
Posted by: tincture | July 16, 2009 11:08 AM
Ed, I actually had not yet become aware of this until your post. I think what is most shocking is the extent to which these people believe themselves to be mainstream, ardent defenders of the American way. For example, the comments about what "world leaders" must think betray a belief that the author's opinions are mirrored not only by Americans at large, but by the entire world.
What I also find surprising is the devolution of the comments into bizarre self-parody, with at least some of the 21st century writers (apparently in earnest) using a kind of bastardization of stereotypical 19th century dialect and patois, "mammy," "pappy," "chillin," etc.; as though the authors' knowledge of culture and literature extends only so far as 1920s and 1930s motion pictures, and black-faced actors portraying stereoptypical characters in vaudeville reviews. It is as though they have stepped fully-formed into the modern world directly from the 1800s, stepping over the whole of the 20th century to proceed directly to the message boards of strange websites, connecting with one another, and by extension, connecting with us. Unpleasant, certainly; but also curious, almost Sci-Fi in weirdness.
So while I am not as surprised by the hostility and racism as some may be, I am definitely surprised at the form it seemed to take; the form of a largely-mythical (and full century out of date) "Kentucky Colonel" zeitgiest that is both frightening and laughable at the same time. There is a real disconnect between this world-view, and what passes for reality these days, that goes beyond mere racism and verges on complete insanity.
I am left to assume that the majority of the writers are in their late 80s, 90s, or in some cases even older - apparently the last surviving southern plantation owners, still fuming over Sherman's march to the sea. These 150-year-old writers are, I suppose, to be commended for their mastery of strange new technologies like the Internet, telephones, and the phonograph; but the projections and fantasies displayed in some of the comments take a definite turn toward full-on madness, carefully typed out with two fingers at a time - by modern-day victims of a kind of possession, maybe, ceaselessly transmitting the bitter thoughts and fears of ancestors long-gone.
Strange voices from our nation's past, echoing faintly into our collective future.
Posted by: threetorches | July 16, 2009 11:08 AM
What I also find surprising is the devolution of the comments into bizarre self-parody, with at least some of the 21st century writers (apparently in earnest) using a kind of bastardization of stereotypical 19th century dialect and patois, "mammy," "pappy," "chillin," etc.; as though the authors' knowledge of culture and literature extends only so far as 1920s and 1930s motion pictures, and black-faced actors portraying stereoptypical characters in vaudeville reviews. It is as though they have stepped fully-formed into the modern world directly from the 1800s, stepping over the whole of the 20th century to proceed directly to the message boards of strange websites, connecting with one another, and by extension, connecting with us.
Interesting analysis. I took from it more that the authors of such comments were deliberately attempting to be as offensive as possible, namely by invoking common stereotypes of slaves and post-slavery servitude traditions (the "mammy" figure, Al Jolson and the entire blackface tradition, etc.). Such sorry relics are fairly common knowledge, even among younger Americans such as myself (then again, I'm a history buff with broad knowledge of the world prior to 1984, but still). And if you consider that many of these Freeper types are likely the product of generations steeped in bigotry and racist thought, then these references would come that much more naturally.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 16, 2009 11:19 AM
I do so hope that someone had the sense to archive the whole thing.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 16, 2009 11:21 AM
threetorches, I've noticed that before and always though it rather odd. Despite the prevalence of many incredibly poor black role models just waiting to be parodied, why do they reach back more than half a century for their stereotypes?
Though I am afraid to think it, I believe itmay be because they still honestly believe that cotton picking and nannying are the proper place for black people even after all these years, and that those caricatures of poor, uneducated folks with few options actually reveal some kind of truth about black people, while modern bad examples like gangsta rappers are just posturing. I think they believe it cuts more deeply, because the parody reveals more truth.
Their own ancestor worship may be a part of it, as well. Given how highly they value their roots – the magical font of their superior whiteness – they might think that mocking the first generation of free black people is like striking the beast in its lair.
Posted by: rob | July 16, 2009 11:26 AM
Our [White House] is now a joke to the rest of the world. We have no respect and this is not going to turn out well, mark my words.
The tragic irony is that he's right - we ARE a joke to the rest of the world, due to people like him, and the thugs they've voted into office.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | July 16, 2009 11:28 AM
I think it may stem from their own ancestor worship. These people so highly value their own roots as the mystical font of superior whiteness that they may feel it is somehow more cutting to mock the first generation of black people who got to name their own children.
It's rather like striking at the trunk of the tree rather than cutting off individual branches. Make fun of a modern-day black person and you just make fun of that person. Make fun of his great grandfather and you mock the entire clan.
Please imagine me sitting in my armchair with a pointy goatee, blowing bubbles from my pipe as I make this assessment.
Posted by: rob | July 16, 2009 11:31 AM
Oops, sorry for the double.
And for this extraneous post, apologizing for the double.
And for the inevitable doubling of this post, as well.
Posted by: rob | July 16, 2009 11:34 AM
Their Freepers. I wouldn't expect anything less from them. Absolute scum of the earth, they are.
Posted by: Iason Ouabache | July 16, 2009 11:41 AM
I have seen no reports of condemnation by rational right wingers. Where are Bush, Romney, Jindal, (god forbid) Palin to rebuke these asswipes? Complicit by their absence.
Posted by: MikeMa | July 16, 2009 11:48 AM
Meh. So some commenters on a website went nuts over something irrelevant. Like tincture said, it's just business as usual, really, except this time the MSM happened to pick up on it. I wouldn't waste my time legitimizing it, either.
Crap. I've said something ironic, haven't I?
Posted by: rob | July 16, 2009 11:56 AM
My guess would be it's because it plays nicely against the dust-up over Leno's comment about Palin's daughter. There was a lot of outcry from folks like the Freepers saying that taking shots at the kids is all kinds of bad. So to report on them doing exactly what they decried as foul a few weeks ago makes gives it an ironic twist that journalist tend to enjoy.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 16, 2009 12:43 PM
I've been wondering if the majority of republicans were always this racist, if the racists are the only ones who haven't left, if they've become racist recently or if they're just so angry that they want to hurt Obama et al as badly as they can and screaming racial epithets is the worst thing they can think of.
I know conservatives aren't going to like hearing this, but at its foundation, conservative (and "traditional") philosophies are very appealing to racists and are, at least partially, racist themselves.
Look at the "debate" over American Exceptionalism. Now think about it for a second, the idea is that America is now, has always been, and will always be, the greatest country in the world. The argument goes on to claim that we've never done anything wrong as a country, or, if we have, we did it for the right reasons, or fixed it before anyone really got hurt. It is a complete crock of ethnocentric, nationalistic, revisionist bullshit. In other words, racist.
Conservatives on the Texas BOE: Remove Chavez, Marshall, and Hutchinson from the textbooks. Again, emphasizing WASP history ... racist.
If you look at a map of the 2008 election, you see the strongest support for McCain in the former Confederacy, these are the same states that established Jim Crow, fought desegregation and court orders like crazy, opposed the civil rights movement, formed the bulk of the Dixiecrat party (as mentioned above), and now form the core of the Republican party. In addition to the south you see support in the western states, but predominantly in the "white evangelical" states. States with significant integration were either very close, or went to Obama. McCain's home state of Arizona, the vote was only 53% for McCain, Utah? 62% Remember the Mormon church and it's position on both African Americans and Native Americans?
Look at the confirmation hearings of Sotomayor, their attempts to portray her as a racist expose much more about how they think than anything else.
In general, the Republican party opposes all forms of Affirmative Action for minorities or women. They used race baiting to get poor and working class whites to support them in the 60s up through today.
We're also seeing numerous faux pas with technology, twitter, email, etc., that show leading Republicans all the way down into the rank and file local leaders and pundits, regularly making racist statements about the president, passing on racist jokes, etc.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/07/obama_racism.html
The slideshow is quite interesting. I'm not sure if the welfare voucher or "blacks in my family tree" are more telling...
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 16, 2009 12:44 PM
Freepers ain't all that bright anyway.
Back in April, one Freeper who fervently believes in UFOs posted several recent news stories. The very next post included a series of photos of UFOS.
One of those photos was a Photoshopped image of a UFO used to advertise a Barbecue for our group... the Central Valley Alliance of Atheists and Skeptics.
That would be somewhat amusing - but it is funnier that they hotlinked the picture.
Hotlinking images is never a good idea... http://tinyurl.com/dhj49r
Posted by: calladus | July 16, 2009 12:47 PM
The U.S. just happens to have an empty military prison for those who advocate undermining the legitimate government and waging war on civilians (such as children).
Posted by: Monado | July 16, 2009 1:00 PM
Regrading the use of antiquated slang like "mammy," I think it's mostly what Sadie said. It's an attempt to be as insulting as possible. They want to hurt people by stirring up the specter of widespread oppression. Mammy then is not just a derogatory term, but reminder of the pain from decades of abuse. It also carries a subtle threat that such oppression is still there, lurking in the shadows, waiting to reassert itself. We did it to you once; we can do it again.
Apart from the passive aggressive aspect, that slang is a template from a time when their feelings were mainstream. They're connecting to a time when it was socially acceptable to be racist. I'm sure it provides a feeling of belonging that is largely (thankfully) absent from modern society.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 16, 2009 1:08 PM
tincture stated:
I added a "sic" after tinctures use of the world "republicans" because I believe tintcture intendend to state Republicans, i.e., members of the Republican party, and whether they have always been this racist. Using the small "r" would be appropriate if describing people like myself who adhere to republicanism, which is distinctly different from the bulk of people who now control the Republican party who are instead conservatives.
The Republican party's historically racist side was more one of republican plutocrats fighting to maintain the status quo in terms of their power and ability to prohibit Jews, Catholics, and "others" from institutions they controlled, including country clubs, certain universities, and the halls of government. This sort of racism has been largely dying off, mainly existing now only in old money venues and mature/dying industries. I do think the rise of the tea baggers who fight for economic policies harmful to themselves though helpful to plutocrats may provide context to reignite the dying embers of racism within the plutocracy when coupled to our electing a liberal black president with a Muslim name.
This plutocratic form of racism is somewhat different than the populist racial hatred that lived inside the Democratic party from the antebellum era through the Carter era. During Reconstruction and for 75 years it was southern Democrats who were able to thrawt civil rights protections in the Senate; these southern conservatives migrated into the Republican party immediately following LBJ signing the Civil Rights acts, fueld by Nixon's southern strategy and all but cemented with Reagan's rhetoric embracing their values. Only a few remnants remain inside the Democratic party, some the older Republican congressmen were originally Democrats but switched parties during this time.
However, there has always been a liberal, Yankee element to the Republican party that was and remains socially liberal. It was pressure from this group that pushed Eisenhower to defend civil rights to some extent, including sending federal troops into Little Rock to defend the right of a black high school girl to attend the whites-only public school she was previously denied admittance from attending. This was the caucus Hubert Humphrey relied on to counter the southern conservatives in his own party as he led efforts in the Congress for civil rights. This is also the element of the party conservatives like Sen. Brownback and Sean Hannity dishonestly claim as their legacy now that's it's politically incorrect to promote blatantly obvious racial hatred, where they disingenuously switch their rhetoric from "conservative" to "Republican" when conditions warrant such.
Fealty to the republican movement is one of limited government power by way of checks and balances and where the federal government has both a moral and legal obligation to defend the rights of the individual from the tyrannies of temporal simple majorities, including those within state and local governments. The vast majority of the Republican party's current members, and its leaders, now reject republicanism and instead solely embrace conservatism. The exodus of party members this decade were mainly those of us who view ourselves a moderates or republicans.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 16, 2009 1:58 PM
Michael Heath:
Two things.
1.) I think that on other blogs that the use of "r" or "R" is more likely to cause confusion than it does here. That being said I rarely worry about that since I use reptilican when speaking of the scum of the GOP (which constitutes the controlling interest, at the moment).
2.) If there were genuine "Republicans", as you describe them, in charge of the GOP, I might be willing to be one.
Posted by: democommie | July 16, 2009 3:13 PM
I wonder how many of them know that sign is actually the logo for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament? And that her Daddy just came home from furthering those lofty aims with the USSR. Successfully, sort of (we still will have 67% left). I'm guessing the Obamas do know, and that is why she sported the symbol.
The real "Peace" sign is the British two fingered 'V' for Victory (palm out please! Palm in means "Fuck You").
Posted by: Gray Gaffer | July 16, 2009 3:26 PM
Abby Normal:
That was Letterman, actually, but otherwise you make an astute observation.Posted by: H.H. | July 16, 2009 3:34 PM
Rob,
It's the hair.
Posted by: hathor | July 16, 2009 3:37 PM
You just know that if one of Obama's daughters had been older and had gotten pregnant out of wedlock, he'd have been unelectable due to the resulting hysteria from the Rush Limbaughs of this world and their fellow travellers. But if the same thing happens to a right-wing candidate, suddenly it's okay.
Posted by: Kevin W. Parker | July 16, 2009 3:52 PM
Back during the campaign last year, with the Right obsessed with a former Weatherman who no one else cared about, I got the impression that they were still trying to fight the battles of 1960s all these decades later. They really didn't understand that the world had moved on. Nor did they understand that when almost everyone under 40 thinks of the 1960s, they think of long hair, Jimmy Hendrix, and marijuana, and they like these things. They don't think of riots and anarchists and all the other things that so thoroughly traumatized conservatives. The crusade against hippydom fails to exercise most people, especially younger people who will one day make up the entire electorate.
This is just more evidence. To freak out about a peace symbol, which has since become so mainstream that it can be found on clothing and accessories in any mall in the country, just shows that the Right still thinks its 1969. It's like they've been in a coma for the last 4 decades.
Posted by: Steve Reuland | July 16, 2009 4:08 PM
D. C. Sessions
Just go at the bottom of the article linked by Ed. A screen capture was saved.
Posted by: BdN | July 16, 2009 4:48 PM
Rob @13:
Personally, I don't think that proves much of anything, because I can't make much sense of the poem. Gawker seems to think it is some kind of call to arms to plant racist comments on conservative blogs, but if so those wiley liberals must be using some secret code I am not privy to.
You did make out that the first letter of each line spells out "BUSH CHENEY BROWN", right?
Threetorches@21:
I am left to assume that the majority of the writers are in their late 80s, 90s, or in some cases even older - apparently the last surviving southern plantation owners, still fuming over Sherman's march to the sea.
Nope, a good many Freepers are much younger. A lot of the younger ones are homeschooled. (Surprised?)
Sadie @22:
Interesting analysis. I took from it more that the authors of such comments were deliberately attempting to be as offensive as possible, namely by invoking common stereotypes of slaves and post-slavery servitude traditions (the "mammy" figure, Al Jolson and the entire blackface tradition, etc.).
One of them invoked the Jeffersons' theme song, too. I read the first 50 comments as captured in a screenpic.
Abby @31:
My guess would be it's because it plays nicely against the dust-up over Leno's comment about Palin's daughter.
As someone pointed out, it was Letterman...but yes, a couple of the Freeper commenters were ticked off about Palin's kids and the "unfair treatment" the Palin family got in the media.
One freeper made the "joke", "Has she been raped by A-Rod yet?" about the pic of Obama's daughter.
Calladus @33:
Back in April, one Freeper who fervently believes in UFOs posted several recent news stories. The very next post included a series of photos of UFOS.
Yeah, the overhwelming majority of Freepi appear to be creationists as well.
Gray @38:
I wonder how many of them know that sign is actually the logo for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament?
At least two commenters on the first comments page of that post did point out that the peace sign was derived from the semaphore representations of "N" and "D".
Steve @42:
To freak out about a peace symbol, which has since become so mainstream that it can be found on clothing and accessories in any mall in the country, just shows that the Right still thinks its 1969.
What I don't get is why the Freepers started repeating the phrase "ghetto trash". Hippies and peaceniks typically weren't from the inner cities or "ghetto", right? I thought most of the good ol' free-loving, pot-smoking hippies came from the white middle class. I don't think the peace sign is in wide use in inner city culture today, either. It seems to be more of a SWPL thing.
Yeah, they were just looking for an excuse to bash the Obamas for being black and for "allowing" their kid to wear casual clothing.
And speaking of looking trashy, what did the Freepers say when this pic of Jenna Bush came out?
http://evilbeetgossip.film.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/jenna_drunk.jpg
Posted by: Adrienne | July 16, 2009 4:51 PM
Steve @42:
Back during the campaign last year, with the Right obsessed with a former Weatherman who no one else cared about, I got the impression that they were still trying to fight the battles of 1960s all these decades later.
I've read a lot of stuff online put out by social conservatives (who are usually politically conservative too), both neocon and paleoconservative. One of the very few things that these two sides agree on is that the 1960s were when America went to hell. Or at least started her slide into hell.
Depending on whose stuff you read, that's when 1) The Christian-hating Jews took over America, 2) The Commies and their fellow travelers took over America, 3) Satan took over America, 4) The blacks took over America, or 5) All of the above got together and collectively took over America.
Civil rights, the Vietnam war protests, desegregation, the Warren court, the end of highly restricted immigration, Vatican II, the loosening of social mores....all bad, all evil, all leading to the chaos and awfulness we have today. At least according to the social conservatives.
Posted by: Adrienne | July 16, 2009 5:04 PM
Thanks for the correction H.H. and Adrienne.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 16, 2009 5:09 PM
Grey Gaffer #38 - I've seen photos of Churchill giving the V sign with palm inwards.
Posted by: guthrie | July 16, 2009 5:11 PM
Yes, and what message is it meant to convey? UPS is conspiring to waterboard someone?
Posted by: kehrsam | July 16, 2009 5:29 PM
I have been so disappointed with some of the citizen of our country. Talk about sore losers, man! I have not seen so much hatred spewed on websites since I have used the web. To think that many of us thought that our nation had overcome some of the worst times in our history and then see the reactions of some among us is so dishearting. I am, howere, glad to know that the majority of voters do not feel the way that I have seen some express their hatred. To attack children, who had nothing to do with an election, one way or the other is an all time low. I find it absolutlty amazing that these people think the rest of the world looks at our nation the same way they look at it. These, I must suppose are people who never leave the U.S. and have no idea how we are seen abroad; and they should never leave the U.S. for they would probably be an embarrassment to us all. When our President is abroad, other heads of state are falling all over themselves to be the ones to appear to be closest to him. I waiting to know when some of these websites and reporters and talk show hosts are considered going over the line when it comes to the office of the president and what they say. I waiting to know when they cross the line as to the security of our nation. This has been the most vile and dispicable rant since the sitin and protest in the 50s. If we don't grow we shall certainly die. We have little time to worry about terroists as we have worst citizens right here in our own country to assist in the self destruction of our own country from the hatred they carry in their hearts. What a pity. Will we ever learn?
Posted by: Khrish Hill | July 16, 2009 5:31 PM
As for something slightly on topic, this is the most bittersweet thing I've seen all day.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/07/16/michelle.obama.slaveroots/index.html?eref=rss_latest
Can you imagine a slave working the rice fields, his great-great-grandaughter being one of the most powerful women in the country? It sort of cancels out this Freeper nonsense.
Posted by: Brandon | July 16, 2009 6:05 PM
Guthrie @47: he could get away with it. And at the time probably did mean FY. Came to mean Peace a little later when Victory became associated with the peace it brought/bought. If you can, I'd like a link to one such. I'm interested in his expression.
I've been threatened with mayhem for getting it wrong in the mid-60's. That's when I learned the counter-culture meanings of these things. Palm inwards is equivalent to thrusting your middle finger up whilst slapping your inner elbow with the other hand.
Posted by: Gray Gaffer | July 16, 2009 6:25 PM
Michael Heath, democommie:
I think you're talking about these "Republicans:"
http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2004/12/i-miss-republicans.html
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 16, 2009 6:31 PM
So where's the so-called liberal media on this?
The next time someone says we've made a lot of progress on race relations in this country, point them to this story.
I'm ashamed of some of my fellow countrymen.
Posted by: WLW | July 16, 2009 7:57 PM
D.C. Sessions - while I consider myself one of those "republicans" though I quit the party, we do deserve some blame for this economic crash - specifically - standing by apathetically and voting for Phil Gramm's anti-regulation bills that allowed investment banks to underwrite or hold assets like a commercial bank without the corresponding regulatory reviews along with selling and holding insurance hedges (the infamous CDS) which weren't regulated by the insurance agency nor adequately hedged with liquid assets. This was not executed by social conservatives, but instead by the plutocracy.
The middle of both parties deserve blame for this. Why would we ever trust a bill whose leader was Phil Gramm?
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 16, 2009 8:30 PM
Re Churchill and V-signs: I read long years ago that Churchill, being an upper-class sort of boy, gave the palm-in version with nary a clue that it was obscene, and had to be corrected by some working-class sod who was nearby. And, as GG says in #51, he likely went on doing it because he could.
Posted by: Coragyps | July 16, 2009 9:38 PM
I'm no expert - my granddaughter is just six and just now outgrowing Spongebob - but it seems that the challenge of finding a printed shirt for a ten-year-old girl that lacks either 1) a peace sign, 2) a skull, or 3) Hannah Montana would be nearly insurmountable.
Posted by: Coragyps | July 16, 2009 9:46 PM
FYI, Eamon - the Vancouver Sun is not related to the Calgary Sun or Toronto Sun with its page 3 Sunshine girls and all that. It's a CanWest publication, associated with the National Post, Calgary Herald, Montreal Gazette...
It's the more "serious" of the two papers in Vancouver...The Province is the tabloid style paper.
all this fuss over a peace sign on a tweenie's t-shirt?
Yikes.
Posted by: CanadianChick | July 16, 2009 10:29 PM
Hather, #40:
That was my instinct, too. I thought the hair was more striking – and more "ethnic" – than the peace sign, so I thought it would be more likely to spur such nastiness than a simple t-shirt. I've noticed that racists seem to have a particular hangup on kinky hair for some reason. It's kinda weird.
I think it looks good on her, though.
Posted by: rob | July 17, 2009 12:54 AM
It's part of the idealized American--they have straight hair, not kinky, bad hair. It's acutely realized in the black community.
Posted by: gwangung | July 17, 2009 1:44 AM
kehrsam @ 48, no message, it was a mnemonic. in a comment tree about mnemonics. I still can't figure out how somebody got, "lets plant bad messages on free republic so they look bad!" from that.
Posted by: tincture | July 17, 2009 3:03 AM
Guthrie @47 & Gray Gaffer @ 51:
I was always told that the origin of the V sign in England came from the gestures of longbowmen fighting in the English army during the Hundred Years' War. According to the story, the French claimed that they would cut off the arrow-shooting fingers of all the English and Welsh longbowmen after they had won the battle of Agincourt. But the English came out victorious and showed off their two fingers, still intact. Hence a double meaning of defiance and victory.
I have no idea if this is true, or just a legend. Anyway, the V sign, palm inwards, is considered a rude gesture in the UK, but it also has still has very strong connotations of defiance. Hence it's use in WW2 meaning both defiance and victory.
Posted by: Sean w | July 17, 2009 6:49 AM
It takes 57 muscles to make the outward (acceptable) "V"; it takes 43 to make the inward (vulgar) "V", so perhaps it's just a matter of ergonomic economy. I actually favor the palm in, single raised (middle) finger. It requires only 25 muscles and it's meaning is, essentially, universal.
Posted by: democommie | July 17, 2009 7:57 AM
rob and gwangung:
Whadda ya think would happen if Mr. President Obama grew a 'fro or started sporting a "do rag"? Do you think the freepers' heads would 'splode?
Posted by: democommie | July 17, 2009 8:02 AM
demo: they'd absolutely LOVE that, since it would reinforce all of their precious racial stereotypes. I think one reason they hate all things Obama so deeply now is that that family steadfastly refuse to fit into the negative stereotypes the Freepers and wingnuts cherish.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 17, 2009 8:46 AM
I've noticed that racists seem to have a particular hangup on kinky hair for some reason. It's kinda weird.
Well, it's a pretty clear physical attribute of their hated ethnic groups. You don't see a lot of Nordic, Aryan types with kinky hair, do you?
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 17, 2009 10:34 AM
another read, "I never actually wnated [sic] to be a pistol before but..."
It's hard not to hate people who see a little girl wearing a t-shirt they don't like and immediately, automatically think "I really want to shoot her".
They should be grateful they're not of Middle Eastern origin, or that site would have been shut down under anti-terror laws ages ago.
Posted by: Der Bruno Stroszek | July 17, 2009 11:22 AM
Sean w - Actually Agincourt (Friday 25 October, 1415)
The English troops, starving and suffering from dysentery, had been outmatched by the mounted & heavily armoured French, so the French were now in the the path of the English line of retreat to the coast. As night fell both sides camped for the night. Despite the steady drizzle, the English, certain of death the next day, spent all night in solemn prayer; while the French feasted and toasted their certain success on the morrow.
The Dawn came, the rain let up, and the armies took up thier positions. The English were at the end of spur of high ground that narrowed, then widened toward the French lines. The spur's grassy highland was flanked by steep grassed slops into the woodland below.
The French forces were under the command of the brilliant strategist Charles d'Albret (Constable of France, but not a nobleman himself). His plan was to gain control of the narrow neck of the spur early in the battle and then flow around the English forces surrounding them.
The English had other ideas. The English Longbowmen rushed out and took command of the neck, contemptuously showing the French the two fingers that they had boasted they would cut off. The French knights were incensed at these English peasants taunting their betters, d'Albret lost control of the noblemen (who outranked him), the knights dismounted and charged in.
The combination of deadly arrow shot, slippery grass, fallen knights (some living, some injured and some dead), limited visibility due to their armour and the crush of in-rushing knights created a French death trap.
The English 'peasants' won an astounding victory, even outnumbered and outclassed, over the flower of the French nobility. [Here endth the history lesson] -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 17, 2009 11:22 AM
Building on the (apocryphal) origin story of the V sign. English longbows were usually made of yew. So the fingers were used to "pluck yew." As the story goes this was the origin of the phrase "fuck you."
The only problem is there were several heralds who recorded the Battle of Agincourt and not one of them makes any mention of threats to cut off fingers or taunts by longbowmen. Like all good myths it does contain a kernel of truth in the story. The terrain and heavy use of the longbow were instrumental in the English victory. Likewise, the French nobility did insist on being in the vanguard. But as the heralds who were there tell it, it was because they expected an easy victory and wanted to grab the glory. They thought that if they weren't the battle would be over before they could join it.
The origins of the V remain a mystery.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 17, 2009 11:50 AM
@D.C. Sessions: I'm inclined to agree with bellatrys in that thread. The rational Republicans never existed.
If they existed, then when? Certainly not in the last 50 years.
Posted by: JThompson | July 17, 2009 12:56 PM
The English Longbowmen rushed out and took command of the neck, contemptuously showing the French the two fingers that they had boasted they would cut off. The French knights were incensed at these English peasants taunting their betters...
That's what they get for taunting King Arthur and throwing huge wooden rabbits at his Merry Men. Payback's a bitch, innit?
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 17, 2009 1:35 PM
CanadianChick @57: FYI, Eamon - the Vancouver Sun is not related to the Calgary Sun or Toronto Sun with its page 3 Sunshine girls and all that. [or the Ottawa Sun, where I live]
Thanks for the correction; I'd been naively assuming that "Sun" was a brand name from Bona Vista to Vancouver Island (strum, strum)....
Posted by: Eamon Knight | July 17, 2009 2:01 PM
I presume the mnemonic BROWN refers to former FEMA director Michael "you're doin' a heckuva job, Brownie" Brown. He certainly deserves to be lumped in with fellow incompetents W and Bush's Brain.
Posted by: Moon Jaguar | July 17, 2009 3:02 PM
The English 'peasants' won an astounding victory, even outnumbered and outclassed, over the flower of the French nobility. [Here endth the history lesson] -DJ
I show the Henry V, "Band of Brothers" speech in one of my classes.
I have to pile on with the "V" and "pluck yew" comments. I've never seen anything legitimate, beyond comedians, etc., that suggests that either story is correct.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 18, 2009 3:04 PM