Liberal blogger Pam Spaulding posted today about the brutal beating of a black woman by a white man in Georgia. The attack on this woman by itself would spark outrage, but the fact that it was done to the victim in front of her terrified young daughter only makes it worse. Add to this that the victim is a military servicemember and the alleged perp comes across as being quite the lowlife, which his mugshot does nothing to dispel. Spaulding is right to feel outraged about this attack. Anyone with a shred of decency would. What confuses me about Spaulding’s post on this is the conclusion she draws that “we see yet again that a post-racial society is nowhere to be found”. She follows this comment with a link to a “related” post:
Interesting, though the connection between the attack in Georgia and the ex-President’s odd remarks escapes me. If this particular attack shows that we are still not in a “post-racial society”, which I presume from the “related” link is the fault of the “teabagger/birther outbursts”, what are we to make of this attack a couple of days ago on a white student by fellow classmates who are black? Is this too the result of “teabagger/birther outbursts”, which would seem to be counter-productive of supposed white racists? Finally, why did Spaulding select the attack on the Georgia woman alone as her example and not include the attack on the Illinois boy? Hmm… curious. Certainly there couldn’t be selective outrage here motivated by partisanship, could there be? Naaaah. Of course not. That would like claiming that thousands of people who turned out to protest a president’s policies were all motivated purely by racism and not because of, say political disagreement.
— John (Average Gay Joe)