Wendi C. Thomas, a black journalist that has written for such media outlets as the Charlotte Observer, the Indianapolis Star and the Nashville Tennessean, was recently asked by what she called a "white man in Memphis" if blacks would riot if Barack Obama should lose the upcoming general election. The question made her angry, and I can't blame her for that anger. But, after a brief flash of sanity, Thomas turned the tables and went on to decide that it will be whites, rather, that will riot if Obama wins, not blacks if he loses.
At first Thomas had the absolute right answer for that "white man from Memphis." She wrote at TheRoot.com that ascribing to "blacks" the actions of rioting from some blacks is not a logical exercise. Even if some blacks rioted after an Obama loss, it is illegitimate to decide that all 40 million blacks in America would agree with that lawlessness. Who could disagree with this sensible comment?
Riot because we didn't get our way? Please. Black people have more than their share of experience with disappointment and dashed dreams. (See: King, Martin Luther; Evers, Medgar; Chaney, James.) Matter of fact, I'd go so far as to say we're experts in making the best out of a losing hand.
The reply to the curious white gentleman: "No! There is no reason to believe black people will riot if Obama does not win."
This is a great response to an absurd question. In fact, when viewing all the riots that have happened throughout America's history, blacks have proven to have no more penchant to rioting than any other ethnic group. Whites rioted in New York during the Civil War to avoid the draft during which several blacks were murdered. Irish immigrants have rioted at points in American history. German immigrants have, as well. Catholics have been the victims of riotous attack, government the target, and blacks have been a target, too. There have been draft riots, labor riots, anarchist riots, race riots and anti-war riots. And let us not forget the riots perpetrated in the 60s by the odious "counter-culture," filled with mostly well-to-do white kids, on college campuses across the country. To be sure, blacks have been the criminals in riots that have erupted after sports victories in such cities as Chicago and Detroit and these may be most fresh in people's minds -- especially for the senselessness of it all -- but it just cannot be said that blacks are more apt to riot than anyone else for any reason. History is clear; nearly every race, color and creed has rioted at one time or another in this country. We have had equal opportunity rioting, for sure.
But then Wendi C. Thomas allows her inner racist to show its ugly head. After saying that blacks should not be feared she uses against whites the same illogic that her "white man from Memphis" used to posit that blacks could riot.
But soon after getting this man's e-mail, I started to wonder if he was on to something, if he had noticed what I had: a seething, barely constrained, ugly anger and frustration that makes good riot fuel. The kind of anger that prompts people to shout "Kill him!" and "Off with his head!" at rallies. The kind of hatefulness that would prompt a man to bring a stuffed monkey with an "Obama" sticker on the toy's head to a campaign event.
That kind of group-fueled nastiness must surely beg the question: Will white people riot if Obama wins?
First of all, Thomas obviously doesn't keep up with the news. The claim that someone said "kill him" at a McCain rally has been debunked by the Secret Service, no less.
Secondly, if she so easily imagines that whites will riot in the event of an Obama win, why is it so hard to say that same for blacks if he loses? Who can doubt that there is just as much hatred for whites in the black community (Farrakhan, Sharpton, Jackson, Malcolm X, Huey Newton) as she intimates that there is for blacks in the white community?
And there is at least one example that one might use to wonder about the possibility of blacks rioting. It's certainly sensible to use the OJ trial as a perfect basis upon which to wonder if blacks might riot after an Obama loss, for instance. After all, the prevailing opinion about OJ among blacks in the US was that he was "innocent" merely because they were tired of "their kind" being targeted by the police, not because OJ was actually innocent. The fact that so many black Americans were willing to absolve OJ of murder because they felt they were being kept down as a group was astounding for its "seething, barely constrained, ugly anger and frustration," wasn't it?
But, riot over OJ? It didn't happen any more than anyone should truly believe it will happen over Barack.
Unfortunately, Thomas seems to worry using the same outlandish, fear-based assumptions aimed at whites that she decries when aimed at blacks.
If the polls are accurate—and Obama wins—will these few angry white people make good on their oral declarations? And will those who stood by them silent, join them? With dreams deferred, can angry whites do what Langston Hughes taught us—to let it fester like a sore, even to let sag like a heavy load? Or will the dream of a perfect streak of white men in the White House, if deferred, cause white people to explode?
Might they torch stores and overturn cars? Or worse, will angry whites take out their disgust on black people by, say, denying loans, or jobs or housing? Burned-out stores and cars, that's unsettling. But the damage angry whites could inflict if they really go off—that's scary.
OK, let's play. I gave two examples of blacks "seething anger." OJ was one and the illegitimate rioting after sports events was a second. What historical evidence can Thomas show for white conservatives to have rioted or came near to such in the recent past?
In truth, there isn't any.
Thomas offers not one single compelling reason to wonder as she does, "Will angry white people riot if Barack Obama wins the election?"
The plain fact of the matter is that there should be no more fear of blacks as a group rioting if Obama loses as there is to worry that whites will riot if he wins. The lawless actions of individual idiots from either ethnic group aside, there is no social unrest at such fever pitch as to imagine there will be wide spread riots in either case.
Further, Wendi C. Thomas is herself wallowing in the same sort of racist thinking as she scolded that "white man from Memphis" for indulging in.
(Photo of Wendi C. Thomas from the Memphis Commercial Appeal)



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
»→ Rodney King
October 23, 2008 - 03:23 ET by Cool ArrowGreat opportunity for Blacks to trash Korean owned stores to get back at the White devils.
And that hatemonger Reginald Denney deserved what he got, I guess.
Wendi C. Thomas started with one observation and her editor threw it back at her saying "Leave something Witchy"
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
The Lib population, or at
October 23, 2008 - 06:27 ET by NoJellyThe Lib population, or at least the "visible" portion of them, will riot regardless the outcome. There will be black and white, just as there are at the riots following sports championships. The media, in it's infinite race-baiting finest however, will focus on black areas and black faces.
In fact, how many of us remember seeing riots by the LOSING fans? Libs and their minions have no ethic, no standard, hence no self control. They will riot regardless. If they lose it will start with a riot of lawyers attempting to tie up the process in order to try and make the outcome questionable.
Should the Anointed One win, the riot will be delayed by the amount of time America has to realize that they've been duped...
Not to debase some of the
October 23, 2008 - 07:56 ET by ThatDudeNot to debase some of the evenhandedness that was applied in the article, but didn't Sharpton or Jackson promise riots if Obama didn't win? I'm fairly sure I remember such a claim being posed during the primaries, at least.
Basically, I doubt there will be any real riots in either case. However, there is a case to be made for either. If I'm right in my recollection, we already have the promise of riots in the case of a McCain win. On the flip side, rioting (or revolution?) may likely be leveled against an Obama campaign as soon as he starts instituting overtly socialistic policies. Bible thumping gun clingers do not like having their rights taken away, and I would assume that most know that the purpose of the second amendment is to allow for them to fight against the government in just such an instance. There is a slight difference between these two instances though. Both are based primarily on conjecture, but one is initiated by the election of one and the other is initiated by actions in the administration of the other.
I'm unsure if my rambling came across clearly or if my thoughts are even accurate. Feel free to agree or disagree!
If anyone riots, it will be
October 23, 2008 - 10:24 ET by kgIf anyone riots, it will be the old media. They have worked so hard these last couple of years promoting Obama that they will absolutely go bonkers if he looses.
"Forget change, I want improvement!"
Would love to see the security video...
October 23, 2008 - 10:28 ET by MightyMouth...of Katie Couric breaking into SAX and running out with her arms full of designer shoes!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
one can only hope
October 23, 2008 - 06:36 ET by Eurikathat this looney article was a lame attempt at satire, imagine "denying (black people) jobs, or loans, or housing" because Obama won?
I think the assylums is going to run out of straight jackets for journalists, like this lady.
If you don't like the question...
October 23, 2008 - 07:01 ET by c5thenAnswer with another question that turns the premis around on the original questioner, It's an old political trick used to avoid answering a question or to rhetorically point out that the question was asked and already answered.
I agree with her original answer. I believe that the rest of the article was meant to show "white people" how angry and frustrated those types of prejudicial questions can make you.
Thomas offers not one
October 23, 2008 - 07:28 ET by MidAmericaThomas offers not one single compelling reason to wonder as she does, "Will angry white people riot if Barack Obama wins the election?"
If obama wins it's because a lot of white people voted for him. Rioters are typically inner city types. And those inner city types (all colors) that are prone to rioting are from the democrat base so the idea of whites rioting with the election of obama is pretty small. I just don't see the residents of suburbia and small towns running amuck screaming "burn baby burn!".
Great article
October 23, 2008 - 07:58 ET by bschoomGreat article. I like the fact that both races are put to the riot question.
I wonder however, since blacks have more recently assembled for a common cause (riots) in more recent decades than other races, specifically whites, if they could use the power of voting to change things more than ever. Not that these changes would be necessarily bad.
But IF it were to happen, could they 'promote' more vigorous election and voting participation for years to come
Reliance On Polls = Recipe For Disaster
October 23, 2008 - 08:28 ET by SquonkamaticThis woman's failure is in subscribing to the notions that the state of polling data BEFORE an election is cast should have anything to do with the actual outcome. This is why the media should be avoided henceforth until the evening of November 4: The reporting of polls is not clearly identified as an untrustworthy prediction of trends rather than an ironclad assessment of how voters are actually going to vote on election day. Instead there is a reliance on polling within the media and a selective reporting of those polls which provide the results that further their wishes, creating an expectation within voters who are TOO STUPID to think for themselves that these polls reflect how the election will end up playing out. If any other results are arrived at it must be evidence of a plot or fraud or tampering, which is a completely retarded and irresponsible conclusion.
In other words, a replay of 2000. If Obama doesn't win by a landslide then we've got big trouble. Not in the form of temporary civil unrest, but in listening to people whine for four to eight years about another "stolen" election. Writers like this lady are helping to build the casework for another undermining of authority if the media's chosen messiah doesn't get to walk on the mount. Makes me want to vomit.
Will There Be Riots If Obama Wins?
October 23, 2008 - 08:49 ET by GothampcThe problem with this assumption is that it assumes that the type of people voting for McCain would riot. But clearly the McCain demographic is not the type to riot.
The people voting for McCain use logic before they use emotion. The people voting for Obama use emotion before logic.
If McCain loses, logic will prevail. If Obama loses, emotion will prevail.
It's a little hard to know what to think about all of this...
October 23, 2008 - 09:30 ET by ThalpyIt's a little hard to know what to think about all of this, at least where inner-city issues are concerned. Often citizens of major cities riot if their team loses--or wins.
This may be politically
October 23, 2008 - 09:40 ET by KevpotThis may be politically incorrect to say, but of course there will riots of Obama loses. Anybody who thinks otherwise is living in la-la land.
This may be politically incorrect to say
October 23, 2008 - 10:44 ET by Mr XI will say this, It will surprise the hell out of me if there is NOT major rioting in at least some citys if the "CHOSEN ONE" WINS, if he loses, well it could get very ugly.
I am VERY GLAD I do not live in a urban area, IF YOU DO, PLAN ACCORDINGLY.
Better safe than sorry.
I think we really have
October 23, 2008 - 09:40 ET by ConservativeRexI think we really have fallen through the looking glass. If this woman believes blacks won't riot when Obami loses she's nuttier than I would have thought.
If blacks riot and loot over a thug getting his ass beat, then this should be a dead certain bet. Does she think there is nobody left from 1968 that remembers anything? Or maybe everyone has forgotten all those East Coast cities on fire then? Or Watts in LA, a few years earlier? Hell yeah there's going to be riots! And a bunch of them.
Now whether whites participate is another thing. I believe they will, but, it's obvious who starts them and why. You can be politically correct, and in denial, at your own peril. We, in so many words, have already been warned.
"Thou shalt not raise a
October 23, 2008 - 10:03 ET by bradbenj5952"Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment: Neither shalt thou countenance a poor man in his cause." Exodus 23:1-3
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Acts 16:31
Pleaseeeeeeeeeee
October 23, 2008 - 10:06 ET by Southern voterWendi Thomas is well known in the Memphis circles for her race baiting articles...always plays the victim ... ..Wendi can't admit that Obama has the least experience of any candidate that has ever run for President....the only reason she will ever accept when Obama looses will always be race...
Tennessee is a very Pro-Life state ... great example of why Tennessee will go for John McCain .it's all about the protection of life and voting for a real American hero...has nothing to do with the color of Obama's skin...
In addiition, you'll be hard pressed to find an article by Wendi showing concern for the bashing of Sarah Palin ...the race drum is only beating in Wendi's head ...
I second those observations.
October 23, 2008 - 12:24 ET by Mike BrattonA Memphis-area resident until just a couple of years ago, I am far more familiar than I care to be with the "work" of Wendi Thomas. She'll manipulate and mishandle a Scripture when it suits her purposes (avoiding the parts that don't work at all for her), slam African-Americans when they don't kowtow to the liberal line, and fail to mention the agendas of people who do toe the line.
To be fair, she can do some good work. Unfortunately, she shows too much affinity for liberalism and syncretism to give her good work any room to breathe.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
White rioting?
October 23, 2008 - 13:54 ET by nkviking75If whites did riot over an Obama victory, it would still be wrong, but it might be understandable. There's every reason to think that there will be mass cheating by Obama supporters. There's the media's open campaigning for Obama. There are the Obama supporters who feel free to vandalize property and attack people. And there's the lack of courage that keeps campaign improprieties uninvestigated by the MSM and the government. Again, let me clear. Any rioting is wrong, but Obama opponents are bound to be angry if "The One" wins.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
I don't know if I'd call it "rioting"...
October 23, 2008 - 16:19 ET by Mike Bratton...but in my conversations lately, I'm hearing a word I never thought I'd hear in 2008, with regard to what some might consider if the socialist Obama is elected to the Presidency of the United States of America.
That word is "secession."
From the United States of America.
Anybody else hearing people talk about this?
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...