By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Rep. Al Green was removed from President Trump’s State of the Union address for holding a sign reading “Black People Aren’t Apes,” a clear response to a video Trump had posted depicting the Obamas as apes. This marks the second consecutive year Green has been ejected from such an address, emphasizing his intentional effort to deliver a message to the President. Green stated that his actions, like those of historical figures such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks, were necessary stands for what he believes in.
Read the original article here
Representative Al Green’s ejection from President Trump’s State of the Union address, triggered by his display of a “Black people aren’t apes” sign, has certainly ignited a firestorm of commentary and debate. It’s a situation that, on its face, raises immediate questions about fairness, free speech, and the starkly different receptions faced by individuals expressing dissent during presidential addresses. The very act of removing a Black congressman for holding a sign intended to counter racist dehumanization is, to many, deeply ironic and frankly, quite disturbing. It leads one to wonder what message such an action is truly meant to convey, and to whom.
The contrast drawn between Green’s ejection and the treatment of other members of Congress who have loudly heckled President Biden is particularly striking. It’s as if a double standard is in full effect, suggesting that certain vocalizations are permissible, even celebrated, when directed at one president, but met with swift removal when aimed at another. This disparity fuels the perception that allegiance to a particular leader, in this case, Trump, is paramount, and any challenge, no matter how grounded in combating racism, is unacceptable. The idea that a Black person is removed for asserting the humanity of Black people, while others who disrupt proceedings seemingly go unpunished, paints a grim picture of the prevailing atmosphere.
One can only imagine the internal thought process of those who deemed Al Green’s sign offensive enough for removal. In what universe, one might ask, is a declaration that Black people are not apes considered controversial or grounds for expulsion? It’s a sentiment that should be universally understood as a basic assertion of human dignity. The fact that this simple statement, intended to rebuke a deeply harmful and historically charged insult, could lead to an ejection suggests a profound disconnect from reality, or perhaps, a deliberate choice to ignore the underlying racism being protested. If President Trump were capable of reading, the notion is that he would likely be deeply offended, not by the message itself, but by the implication that such a message is even necessary.
The response from fellow Democrats has been varied, but a significant sentiment expressed is that every Democrat present in that room should have stood in solidarity with Representative Green and walked out. This collective departure would have sent an unequivocal message: that the ejection of a member for protesting racism is an unacceptable affront to the principles of justice and equality. Instead, some observers express disappointment that the Democratic leadership, specifically figures like Jeffries and Schumer, are perceived as prioritizing decorum over outright protest, even advising their colleagues not to interrupt. This approach, for some, is seen as a failure to grasp the political theater of the moment and a missed opportunity to galvanize support by directly confronting the President with powerful, perhaps even brutal, zingers.
The argument is made that in the current political climate, rigid adherence to decorum is largely a forgotten concept, at least among the electorate. The desire for a more direct and impactful form of protest, one that resonates with voters, is palpable. The idea that Democrats could gain votes by being more vocally critical, rather than restrained, is a recurring theme. This suggests a frustration with what is perceived as a passive approach by the Democratic party, particularly when faced with what some characterize as the “disgusting behavior” of President Trump during the address.
Furthermore, the comparison to past instances where members like Wilson, or later, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert, were not ejected for their disruptive behavior when President Biden was speaking, only sharpens the focus on the alleged double standard. It highlights a perception that the rules are applied selectively, with a seemingly higher tolerance for disruptive behavior that aligns with certain political viewpoints, and a much lower tolerance for actions that challenge the status quo or call out perceived injustices. The term “Mango Mussolini” used by one commenter to describe Trump, alongside descriptions of his behavior as “insanity,” underscores the intense emotional reactions this event has elicited.
The notion of free speech is also central to the discussion. To eject someone for displaying a sign that champions basic human rights feels like a direct contradiction to the principles of open expression. The fact that Al Green’s sign was met with such a severe consequence, while others who have engaged in vociferous opposition have faced no such repercussions, leads many to question the sincerity of the commitment to free speech principles within certain political circles. The sentiment that “so much for free speech” is a common refrain, highlighting the perceived hypocrisy.
The very content of Representative Green’s sign, “Black people aren’t apes,” is, for most, an unremarkable statement of fact, albeit one made necessary by the persistence of racist tropes. The idea that asserting the humanity of Black people could be seen as offensive is, frankly, baffling to many. It points to a deeper societal issue where the very discussion of racism is met with discomfort or even hostility. For those who supported Green’s action, it was a courageous stand against a long history of dehumanization. The suggestion that “all of us are apes technically” doesn’t negate the racist intent behind the historical comparison of Black people to primates; it simply acknowledges a scientific classification that has been weaponized to oppress.
The widespread support for Al Green, even among those who might not always agree with his political strategies, stems from his consistent efforts to challenge injustice. His repeated attempts to impeach Trump are seen by some as part of a larger pattern of using every available platform to voice dissent and advocate for his constituents. While his individual power within Congress might be limited, his ability to generate attention and spark conversation is undeniable. The question of pretext for his ejection is also raised – was there a legitimate procedural reason, or was the sign itself the sole justification, thereby revealing the underlying motive?
Ultimately, Representative Al Green’s ejection from the State of the Union for holding a sign that affirmed the humanity of Black people has become a potent symbol of the ongoing struggle against racism and the perceived hypocrisy in how dissent is handled within the political arena. It has brought to the forefront discussions about free speech, double standards, and the fundamental need to constantly affirm the dignity of all individuals, especially in the face of attempts to dehumanize them. The act itself, while leading to his removal, has undeniably amplified the message he sought to convey, reminding the nation that the fight for equality and against prejudice is far from over.