What is your definition of racism?

[7djengo7]

What is your definition of racism?

Better yet, what (if anything) should be called "race" or "a race"?

Anybody who cannot say anything meaningful and coherent regarding this much parroted word, "race", is necessarily going to fare at least as poorly when it comes to trying to say something about derivative words such as "racism" and "racist".

 

[ok doser]

I would consider that we're all members of the human race.

Those who want to treat blacks as a separate race must think they're not human :idunno:

 

[Town Heretic]

"To see those, those monkeys from those African countries — damn them, they're still uncomfortable wearing shoes!" Ronald Reagan

Wrong. Sure. Racist?

Wrong why? When you answer that you get the larger answer.

Long ago I've come to the decision to not use derogatory names. I'm working on it.

That's a high bar, but good on you if it seems the way to go for you.

Point? I'm disinterested as a third party but to me, it certainly looks 'snowflakey' to me.

You think "snowflakey" isn't derogatory?

Democrats and liberals cater to cry-baby mentality and entitlement.

And those terms that you wed to Democrats and liberals are what? Also, maybe you're just an insulated white guy who doesn't understand what generational dehumanization and racism can do in terms of sensitizing. Maybe words that have never been aimed at you with that sort of emotional impact don't really register with you and you haven't made enough of an effort on the point.

Imagine you're a woman. Now imagine someone calls you the most loathsome name you can think of as a woman. Now imagine a lot of people will address you that way without provocation. You're beginning to get the picture if you do.

We have 'certain' inalienable rights, not every whim. To me, and I've been called naive likely appropriately

I think you have a blind spot when it comes to racism. I'm thinking of how you didn't see it where you're ensconced, though BLM takes issue with your perception. And now you don't see a pretty clear expression of it with Reagan. . . I'm beginning to suspect you won't see it until it marches down your street in a sheet.

much racism problems are caused by people who needlessly take personal offense where the original was mostly none of their business.

To my most of the racist problems are caused by racists, and you don't get to decide if a racial insult doesn't concern everyone of that race.

I don't believe Reagan's comment was racist.

It exists as a racist statement with or without your belief. Want proof? Go into any black neighborhood you like. You pick it. Walk up to a group of black men and choose one, just one man to aim that same language at. You can even say, prior to it (though Reagan didn't qualify it at all) that you're only meaning it about the one guy. Get back to us on how it turns out.

 

[Lon]

"To see those, those monkeys from those African countries — damn them, they're still uncomfortable wearing shoes!" Ronald Reagan


Wrong why? When you answer that you get the larger answer.

:nono: It isn't wrong because it's racist. It's wrong because it is derogatory. If we try and lower another by poor comparison, it is about demeaning a being made in the image of God. It is demeaning His character and love. If applied to much of an entire group unfairly, it is racism.

That's a high bar, but good on you if it seems the way to go for you.

For all of us.1 Peter 2:1 Titus 3:2 Ephesians 4:29-31

You think "snowflakey" isn't derogatory?

Difference between metaphor and adjective? One can be snowflakey without being a snowflake (fragil). No, I don't think snowflakey is much more than a description of fragile. Does such cut them down below actual?

And those terms that you wed to Democrats and liberals are what?

An action, like catering to cry-baby entitlement mentality? If it is untrue, let me be corrected.

Also, maybe you're just an insulated white guy who doesn't understand what generational dehumanization and racism can do in terms of sensitizing. Maybe words that have never been aimed at you with that sort of emotional impact don't really register with you and you haven't made enough of an effort on the point.

Words only have power over those who believe them. I've been called names, inappropriately and even after my color by those of another. Yes, I'm insulated, but because greater is He that is in me, than he who is in the world. Woe to him that causes a little one to stumble, however, so I agree but am not as naive, if insulated.

Imagine you're a woman. Now imagine someone calls you the most loathsome name you can think of as a woman. Now imagine a lot of people will address you that way without provocation. You're beginning to get the picture if you do.

I had a very difficult childhood and have enough reasons to be 'prejudice' if that was going to be a problem. Christ is the equalizer.

I think you have a blind spot when it comes to racism. I'm thinking of how you didn't see it where you're ensconced, though BLM takes issue with your perception. And now you don't see a pretty clear expression of it with Reagan. . . I'm beginning to suspect you won't see it until it marches down your street in a sheet.

Incorrect. Rather I don't see it under every bush nor can I suggest Reagan applied this to all Africans. I can say he made a derogatory statement about several African delegates. I cannot say he meant it toward a complete race of people.

To my most of the racist problems are caused by racists, and you don't get to decide if a racial insult doesn't concern everyone of that race.

I disagree. As I've said, Chris Rock doesn't mean all blacks, nor even just blacks when he uses the "N-word." Reagan could have meant

If I say something about two ignorant shirtless hillbillies, do I by any necessity mean all people who live in the country are?
Further, does the derogatory statement have to go as far as 'applying' to every other country dweller?

It exists as a racist statement with or without your belief. Want proof? Go into any black neighborhood you like. You pick it. Walk up to a group of black men and choose one, just one man to aim that same language at. You can even say, prior to it (though Reagan didn't qualify it at all) that you're only meaning it about the one guy. Get back to us on how it turns out.

You are creating a different scenario. If a guy came over and took the hub caps off my car and I called him a derogatory name according to the crime such as the "N-word" I know for a fact the rest of the community wouldn't. Why? Because I've friends in that community where most are black, some white, and I've heard the white guy say it. He's still alive.

The problem further is that I believe all derogatory language is wrong, just for the intent of demeaning (lowering) the value of another being. I don't want to excuse Reagan. 1) I don't want to discount all the good he'd done, despite that and will attempt to weigh every action or word upon its own merit rather than dragging up 'monkey' after every and anything I don't agree with. 2) I don't want to assume something wrong said to one person was intended for the greater audience and 3) finally, I don't want to excuse it, but I certainly don't want to talk about the topic on an unrelated thread or conversation.

 

[ok doser]

:nono: It isn't wrong because it's racist. It's wrong because it is derogatory. If we try and lower another by poor comparison, it is about demeaning a being made in the image of God. It is demeaning His character and love. If applied to much of an entire group unfairly, it is racism.

Christ should be our example in such matters - did He ever use derogatory or demeaning language when referring to a being made in His image?

 

[Lon]

Christ should be our example in such matters - did He ever use derogatory or demeaning language when referring to a being made in His image?

No. He called the pharisees 'vipers' as a metaphor, not to devalue them, but to address the lack. It could have been demeaning, but the intent was to call out a flaw in white washed tombs.

 

[Town Heretic]

:nono: It isn't wrong because it's racist.

Yes, Lon, that's the only reason it could be wrong.

It's wrong because it is derogatory.

It's derogatory because it's racist. If I said it about my brother you'd laugh at me. If he'd said it about some white guys everyone would be scratching their heads, because that's not where the trope sits or how it has power. You can make fun of someone by saying they look like a monkey, white or black. It would be a poor choice, even so, for a white person, because it invites confusion on the motivation, given the existence of that ape/gorilla/monkey trope connection. But that's not what he did. He just called them monkeys.

"To see those, those monkeys from those African countries — damn them, they're still uncomfortable wearing shoes!" Ronald Reagan

Words only have power over those who believe them.

And that, my friend, is the whitest, most insulated thing you've written so far. Rather, power lends words power. And that power can be good or evil. With racism, it's evil that empowers and can harm an entire race of people if those in power believe in it and act on it.

I've been called names, inappropriately and even after my color by those of another.

Someone call you a cracker, did they? Trading on a history of inhuman treatment, discrimination and outright brutality done to the white man, was it? How you managed to type that, let alone publish it is remarkable to me.

I had a very difficult childhood and have enough reasons to be 'prejudice' if that was going to be a problem.

No one has reasons to be prejudiced, Lon, only excuses.

Incorrect. Rather I don't see it under every bush

If you think calling blacks monkeys who are still discomforted by shoes is under a bush I think my "marching down main street in sheets" or Hitler cramming kids into an oven feels a lot less like exaggeration than I intended.

nor can I suggest Reagan applied this to all Africans.

So if he only calls one black guy who shoves past him a N.... it's nothing really. lain:

I can say he made a derogatory statement about several African delegates.

A man comfortable with calling even one black man a monkey has already told us what's wrong with his thinking.

You are creating a different scenario.

No, I'm not. No one did anything to Reagan. They voted their conscience. He just didn't like it and he slipped. The scenario I paint is simple, it only requires that people understand the words, the trope. I'm betting if you try it you'll find out in a hurry that they do and to a man. If they're kind enough to let you off with a look, count that audience remarkably restrained.

The problem further is that I believe all derogatory language is wrong, just for the intent of demeaning (lowering) the value of another being. I don't want to excuse Reagan.

Then don't.

I don't want to discount all the good he'd done

You don't have to. Respect the good, where you find it.

,despite that and will attempt to weigh every action or word upon its own merit rather than dragging up 'monkey' after every and anything I don't agree with.

Which isn't what was done here and by me either. I made a point, indirectly, about the fallacy of resting on the authority of declarations by men who have been recognized for some measure of greatness. It's a common error, best dispelled by demonstrating that there are thoughts those men have which are anything but great. I prefer arguments in parts, subject to reason to establish their worth.

I don't want to assume something wrong said to one person was intended for the greater audience

Many a racist in business or politics, or relying on a broader public for his appeal hid that darkness under something absent the clear knowledge that the party spoken to was of a likened mind, as with Nixon, who was a racist.

The third point has been addressed, I think, prior.

 

[ok doser]

No. He called the pharisees 'vipers' as a metaphor, not to devalue them, but to address the lack. It could have been demeaning, but the intent was to call out a flaw in white washed tombs.

I could argue against that, but instead will suggest that Reagan was doing something similar when he referred to those specific UN members as "monkeys" - he was calling out their flaw in reasoning/intelligence, as evidenced by their vote.

He might just as easily have called them "backward" or "foolish" or "retarded"

I see nothing in Reagan's comments that suggest he was denying their humanity, nothing to suggest that he actually thought them simian and not human

 

[ok doser]

Widely publicized at the time and known to both Reagan and Nixon, was the victory dance:

The previously undisclosed exchange took place after the United Nations voted to expel Taiwan in order to seat representatives from Beijing, a move that the United States opposed. Delegates from Tanzania celebrated with a victory dance in the General Assembly hall.

... which might well have evoked images of monkeys jumping around, especially as they may well have been dancing barefoot

 

[ok doser]

Worth mentioning as well is the fact that the Tanzanian vote helped to give legitimacy to an enemy country during a time of war, the leader of which country is widely recognized today as being the most prolific mass murderer in history

 

[Town Heretic]

Well, again, as above, if there is even an inkling of doubt, I think it best to take the high road.

A racist trope doesn't really lend itself to that, but beyond that I'd say if it's reasonable to read a thing more than one way and what I know of the source inclines me, I'll choose the better reading. Absent that I'll look harder at the larger body of work to make the determination.

I think there is a difference between real tears and just a complaining spirit and I really don't want to empower the latter. We'd cave to every whim as a country at that point. Is this grounds for that? It might be, but does it 'have' to be, in this case?

So it's an inkling for Reagan, whom you admire and more roundly agree with and far less than an inkling for the complaining party, with whom you lack that fundamental regard. Why not believe the grievance legitimate, given the historical foundation? It seems more consistent with your approach otherwise.

Hurtful and totally unhelpful so it is just ugly angst. If she thinks all women of color are simian, she's a racist.
Same company. Bad company at that.

She can be a racist without believing every woman of color is a monkey. By way of example, you could be reared in a social class where it is common to find at least one black woman who would be in charge of the youngest children of a family and be beloved by those children. Those same children might often retain that affection even as they grew into the social notions and exclusions of their kin relating to most others of color.

No, you only have to believe the person you dislike is a monkey to evidence a thing that's rooted in you. Though chances are if you find that true of one it will color your thinking beyond that, to one extent or another.

Not seeing how I'm standing in mud-slinging or dirt digging robes...

Then I'd suggest you read the terms you're using, the subjective valuations you're applying to some in your rhetorical choices. I pointed directly at a few of them.

Bringing up one thing about a person to cast him or her in a poor light, when on the discussion table is an unrelated presentation concerning societal blame.

You need to understand that two things were happening. A quote without support in reason was proffered and the authority of the messenger was used instead. A bit like quoting Jefferson on the tree of liberty, as if a reputed great man believing a thing makes the thing believable, or true. So it's entirely appropriate to attack that foundation.

Here's the parallel. A fellow on trial introduces evidence of his character as reproof of the charges, which themselves suggest a lower character. When that's done it is permissible (and wise) to address that character being offered in evidence.

 

[Lon]

A racist trope doesn't really lend itself to that, but beyond that I'd say if it's reasonable to read a thing more than one way and what I know of the source inclines me, I'll choose the better reading. Absent that I'll look harder at the larger body of work to make the determination.

It's appreciable.

So it's an inkling for Reagan, whom you admire and more roundly agree with and far less than an inkling for the complaining party, with whom you lack that fundamental regard. Why not believe the grievance legitimate, given the historical foundation? It seems more consistent with your approach otherwise.

Specifically, because it believes the worst in than the best of... It looks often exactly as you describe 'willful naivety.'

She can be a racist without believing every woman of color is a monkey. By way of example, you could be reared in a social class where it is common to find at least one black woman who would be in charge of the youngest children of a family and be beloved by those children. Those same children might often retain that affection even as they grew into the social notions and exclusions of their kin relating to most others of color.

As I said, I really need the context to go that far. It certainly does appear by even a casual glance to be. She didn't seem to be disparaging Michelle over anything but being of African descent. If it was fostered by some severe frustration, there is still more in play than racism in general.

No, you only have to believe the person you dislike is a monkey to evidence a thing that's rooted in you. Though chances are if you find that true of one it will color your thinking beyond that, to one extent or another.

Dr. Lizardo (lizard descent) called his landlord a 'monkey boy.' He wasn't black. I really don't like disparaging comments and I don't think they should be lost in a greater worldly sense of racism in that such language and implication already makes 'us/them' mentality and accentuates a difference. That in and of itself doesn't stop racism, it is further fuel for it because it underscores such difference.

Then I'd suggest you read the terms you're using, the subjective valuations you're applying to some in your rhetorical choices. I pointed directly at a few of them.

Snowflakey simply means and only means 'fragil' by the comparison. Enabling complainers is certainly a valuation. I believe it a correct one.

You need to understand that two things were happening. A quote without support in reason was proffered and the authority of the messenger was used instead. A bit like quoting Jefferson on the tree of liberty, as if a reputed great man believing a thing makes the thing believable, or true. So it's entirely appropriate to attack that foundation.

Too obscure to be meaningfully applied imho. It simply distracted and looked the part of what it evoked.

Here's the parallel. A fellow on trial introduces evidence of his character as reproof of the charges, which themselves suggest a lower character. When that's done it is permissible (and wise) to address that character being offered in evidence.

So "He's a racist, so of course he can't do sociological quotes?" Again, I think the chasm is much larger than the possibility of comparison.

 

[Gary K]

It makes me laugh when socialists and evolutionists cry racism over calling someone a monkey. It's just plain hilarious. How is it an insult to be called a monkey when the claim is we're all descended from monkeys? Is it an insult to call someone the descendant of their ancestors? It's such a two-faced lunacy to make the claim of racism it just makes me laugh. To me it just highlights the deceit that both evolution and socialism are built upon.

 

[Town Heretic]

It makes me laugh when socialists and evolutionists cry racism over calling someone a monkey. It's just plain hilarious. How is it an insult to be called a monkey when the claim is we're all descended from monkeys?

I suppose their answer is going to be the same as anyone else's: the history and intent of the usage. Because the person hurling the insult isn't suggesting everyone is descended from apes and so the point remains, regardless of who uses it.

Is it an insult to call someone the descendant of their ancestors? It's such a two-faced lunacy to make the claim of racism it just makes me laugh. To me it just highlights the deceit that both evolution and socialism are built upon.

It isn't though. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you were born out of wedlock. It doesn't follow that someone saying that you're a real bastard is making anything like a literal point. So hypocrisy doesn't really, necessarily follow.

 

[Town Heretic]

Specifically, because it believes the worst in than the best of... It looks often exactly as you describe 'willful naivety.'

My point is that you're not applying the same standard, Lon. You like Reagan, so you're literally ready to think a racist trope was something (what, you don't say) other than what it was while you off-handedly describe people you lack that investment in, those complaining, without that same benefit.

As I said, I really need the context to go that far. It certainly does appear by even a casual glance to be. She didn't seem to be disparaging Michelle over anything but being of African descent. If it was fostered by some severe frustration, there is still more in play than racism in general.

My response remains, if you use a racist trope you label yourself with the use and the "more" would be what? Anger over her political ideas? Maybe, even likely, but that's just a part of what provokes the glimpse into her mindset, in the same way that being rebuffed even indirectly gave us an insight into Reagan's.

Dr. Lizardo (lizard descent) called his landlord a 'monkey boy.' He wasn't black.

I love a Buckaroo Banzai reference. Sure. When a fictional alien character aims it at humans it has a different meaning and comes from a different place. When two black people use it between one another it's also different.

Snowflakey simply means and only means 'fragil' by the comparison.

And it's insulting, derogatory. Right.

Enabling complainers is certainly a valuation. I believe it a correct one.

You're using that in connection to our current conversation. And everyone believes they have the correct idea.

Too obscure to be meaningfully applied imho

Then your humble opinion isn't reasonable, because it's a direct parallel. I'll try it without illustration: if you use a quote by someone who has been, historically speaking, beloved and respected, and your quote is offered without any other effort aimed as supporting the point of the quote by reason, you are then premising the value of that position on the authority of the speaker. When you do that it is reasonable to question that assumption, the basis of your "argument."

So "He's a racist, so of course he can't do sociological quotes?"

Rather, he's using the rhetoric of racists, so resting on his character alone to establish the weight of his (and the user's) claim, is rationally suspect.

 

[genuineoriginal]

"To see those, those monkeys from those African countries — damn them, they're still uncomfortable wearing shoes!" Ronald Reagan

Yep! Ronald Reagan always had trouble getting Bonzo to wear shoes, but could put other clothes on him with little problem.

 

[Gary K]

I suppose their answer is going to be the same as anyone else's: the history and intent of the usage. Because the person hurling the insult isn't suggesting everyone is descended from apes and so the point remains, regardless of who uses it.


It isn't though. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you were born out of wedlock. It doesn't follow that someone saying that you're a real bastard is making anything like a literal point. So hypocrisy doesn't really, necessarily follow.

I see you're another one who thinks he is God. How can you tell the intent in the heart of another person whom you cannot know? Are you an infallible mind reader? Or are you assuming, because of your paradigm of the world, that anyone who says something that you see as racist, has the same paradigm of the world that you do? I say that is a pretty logical assumption on my part. I also say it's a very bad mistake to make. To understand what another person means by any word usage you have to understand that person intimately. You obviously were never a close friend of Reagan, nor are you a close intimate of any of those you accuse of racism here. So your chance of understanding the intents of these people's hearts? Zero, zilch, nada, none.

All you can know is what they say, but you cannot know the intent of the heart. And, people's paradigms, how they view the world and all that is in it, vary as widely as their looks and experiences which is pretty much equal to the total number of people alive. But, I guess you consider one in several billions a really good chance of being right.

 

[Lon]

My point is that you're not applying the same standard, Lon. You like Reagan, so you're literally ready to think a racist trope was something (what, you don't say) other than what it was while you off-handedly describe people you lack that investment in, those complaining, without that same benefit.


My response remains, if you use a racist trope you label yourself with the use and the "more" would be what? Anger over her political ideas? Maybe, even likely, but that's just a part of what provokes the glimpse into her mindset, in the same way that being rebuffed even indirectly gave us an insight into Reagan's.

1) Yes, I do like Reagan, most of the time he was in office. I don't ever envision any one man will ever espouse all my values, but at least I can count the number of disappointments only, on one hand.

2)You 'may' be correct about Reagan, are 'probably' correct about Reagan. I don't like casting a bad light on someone not able to respond and I also would like to believe what he taught his children was an actual value. Whatever the reason for this particular, I just don't want to 'bin' the comments (nor even your responses).

I love a Buckaroo Banzai reference. Sure. When a fictional alien character aims it at humans it has a different meaning and comes from a different place. When two black people use it between one another it's also different.

Well, fictional, yes, but derogatory toward our race. How, where do we draw the line? I appreciate sensitivity. I don't think we help a child whenever he/she cries for something by just giving it to them. I do want to hug a kid most times a kid's feelings are hurt, but there are times where melodrama, I think, needs something else. On this, I'm not against what you are saying as far as racism, but Reagan's dead. It doesn't matter much if a person of a segment takes offense, they shouldn't. The man can't hurt him from the grave. As to value, I think we yet need to value much of what Reagan did and said, regardless of his imperfections (whatever they may be).

And it's insulting, derogatory. Right.

Kind of like Patton slapping a crying soldier, Mollycoddling isn't necessarily the opposite proper virtue. I don't get upset when women talk about the problems of the male portion of society. Guys generally aren't too thin skinned (also a derogatory term in your mind?). We simply disagree here. If someone is fragile, then snowflake is appropriately associative for what I was trying to convey: That some people, mostly in the politics of Democrats and liberals, are extra sensitive and prone to give platform to complaint - emoting first rather than thinking. Case in point? One presidential hopeful has promised African Americans they will receive recompense for their ancestor's slavery. "Derogatory" would be 'lowering' somebody to that standard whereas metaphor seeks to apply exactly what that is, without lowering or devaluing. So, as far as I'm concerned, "snowflakey" isn't even a name, but a comparison to an action or series of actions. Adverb vs. adjective.

You're using that in connection to our current conversation. And everyone believes they have the correct idea.

Just you and I, here. I used an adverb so was commenting on a certain action of certain affiliations.

Then your humble opinion isn't reasonable, because it's a direct parallel. I'll try it without illustration: if you use a quote by someone who has been, historically speaking, beloved and respected, and your quote is offered without any other effort aimed as supporting the point of the quote by reason, you are then premising the value of that position on the authority of the speaker. When you do that it is reasonable to question that assumption, the basis of your "argument."

It is 'humble' because it is just mine BUT the converse, the accusation, is attempting to climb into another's head and give no quarter as to purposeful meaning. I'm just not able to do that. Because I like Reagan? No, not just that. It has to do with the office, demise of the person, etc. as well. You can't meaningfully apply a single item to my stance.

Rather, he's using the rhetoric of racists, so resting on his character alone to establish the weight of his (and the user's) claim, is rationally suspect.

Or "monkey see, monkey do" as a parroting without thought or purposeful malice. If you were correct, then Patti's memory makes no sense. He taught her not to do it. Whatever the context, it isn't as clear and cut and dry to me for several reasons. My stepfather certainly said some racist comments. His love for me outweighed his racism. If after he'd said "we can't take blame as a society for a criminal in most cases" one would and does not, have anything to do with the other, nor does his racism cause all his counsel to be bad. My stepfather, late in life, made a profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. As I'd said too, with Patti Davis' comment, her father's legacy should be seen beyond this incident.

 

[Lon]

Yes, Lon, that's the only reason it could be wrong.

It is rather a spiritual problem that sees another 'lower than themselves.' "IF" applied to the whole of a group then race (the entire race) is racism.

It's derogatory because it's racist.

Rather because its demeaning. We are disagreeing over the scope here, though we may be arguing over the term and scope of 'racism.'

If I said it about my brother you'd laugh at me. If he'd said it about some white guys everyone would be scratching their heads, because that's not where the trope sits or how it has power. You can make fun of someone by saying they look like a monkey, white or black. It would be a poor choice, even so, for a white person, because it invites confusion on the motivation, given the existence of that ape/gorilla/monkey trope connection. But that's not what he did. He just called them monkeys.

At least you are seeing the difference in scope having a different interpretation.

"To see those, those monkeys from those African countries — damn them, they're still uncomfortable wearing shoes!" Ronald Reagan

And that, my friend, is the whitest, most insulated thing you've written so far. Rather, power lends words power. And that power can be good or evil. With racism, it's evil that empowers and can harm an entire race of people if those in power believe in it and act on it.

Are you sure you, not black, get to make this assessment? I've come to realize a LOT of political tension being a white heterosexual Christian male, lately. Any derogatory names coming with that? Yes. "Bigot, racist, etc." At the same time, I'm secure in Christ and trust politics not at all. My value is from Whom I value.

Someone call you a cracker, did they? Trading on a history of inhuman treatment, discrimination and outright brutality done to the white man, was it? How you managed to type that, let alone publish it is remarkable to me.

How about the black kids who beat on me and my cousin and made us their playground slaves? No, "Cracker" would have been nicer. A few of those kids are dead now, but I saw one is a manager of a local outlet store. I could be bitter, mean, bruised and tainted. It was because of 'racism' that I was abused. It was because of oppression I was oppressed. I think know this AND empathizing helped me to not be racist particularly. On top of that, I've tried to stop seeing colors as separating. I look back now and see the homosexual kid and the black kids who tried to hurt or kill me, as hurt or being killed themselves. Its all they knew. It is very hard not to come to some kind of general understanding of either given the repeated experiences. I'm kind to either I come across today. I've had friends and still have from both examples (and others). While words can do damage, sometimes in attempt to dissuade them, as we've talked about in the past, like a law that forces, an equal resistant force is often caused. It thus exacerbates the problem. Ignoring it and hoping/praying it to go away may not stop it either, but I'm not convinced short of Christ's return we 'can' cure ills. I believe in Christ we can and do.

No one has reasons to be prejudiced, Lon, only excuses.

So that'd be prejudice for me above? Are the above 'reasons' genuine, or unreasonable excuses? 'Moreover, what is my Christian place? To ignore a wrong from a very particular populace and race? To learn from the experience of such? Was the tension in my mind? Was I the scapegoat for racial tension as a child? What was their oppression? Racism or racialism? What was I experiencing from them? How should I have responded as a child? How should I see it as an adult? I was already deeply hurt and scarred at that point in my life. I truly believe grace has kept me from anything but hoping the best and believing the best, but it also does as you suggest, forces a kind of naivety that isn't really dealing with the sin of the world. It 'tries' to rise above it, but it is certainly head-in-the-clouds. I'd be snowflakey if I didn't dwell there in that strength.

If you think calling blacks monkeys who are still discomforted by shoes is under a bush I think my "marching down main street in sheets" or Hitler cramming kids into an oven feels a lot less like exaggeration than I intended.

This is only telling me, for you, this is crystal clear, black and white. As I said previous post, not for me.

So if he only calls one black guy who shoves past him a N.... it's nothing really. lain:

By intent? Possibly, unless its as crystal clear to you as Hitler killing young and old or the Klan against all who are not Aryan.

A man comfortable with calling even one black man a monkey has already told us what's wrong with his thinking.

Maybe. Maybe, however, it was not a part of his values. Maybe he deeply regretted it the next day. Maybe he only meant the two or so that favored China. What's next? "Maybe" Hitler was really a nice guy???? Are we REALLY comparing Reagan to Hitler now? You may be given to overstatement/exaggeration, Town.

No, I'm not. No one did anything to Reagan. They voted their conscience. He just didn't like it and he slipped. The scenario I paint is simple, it only requires that people understand the words, the trope. I'm betting if you try it you'll find out in a hurry that they do and to a man. If they're kind enough to let you off with a look, count that audience remarkably restrained.

It doesn't equate for me and again looks exaggerated.

Then don't.

Nor do I want to paint him all...
How far did he drop in your esteem?

You don't have to. Respect the good, where you find it.

It becomes difficult, when in a discussion of any of his other stand-alone quotes, the former is brought up every other instance.
Isn't the intent that "I have to?"

Which isn't what was done here and by me either. I made a point, indirectly, about the fallacy of resting on the authority of declarations by men who have been recognized for some measure of greatness. It's a common error, best dispelled by demonstrating that there are thoughts those men have which are anything but great. I prefer arguments in parts, subject to reason to establish their worth.

Absolutely! The conversation grows long otherwise (and over in a different thread as well). For here though, I moved it to discuss more on the topic. Racism is an important topic and this, this illustrates a thin line in thinking and 'may or may not' show how 'white' I am. I'm okay with that, as long as I can still be taught. When I cannot, you are excused (in every gracious sense) to retire words and pray for me. I want to be, in this, close to reasonable, and closer still to my Savior. It may or may not be an insurmountable task, but I'm convinced you are empowered to move mountains. :e4e:

Many a racist in business or politics, or relying on a broader public for his appeal hid that darkness under something absent the clear knowledge that the party spoken to was of a likened mind, as with Nixon, who was a racist.

The third point has been addressed, I think, prior.

As I'd said, I'd seen black men downtrodden in Texas on the job I was on as well as being asked to leave a black church for fear of the KKK burning crosses on lawns and harming black children. I'm not sure the 'ignore it, it'll go away' is always the best approach, but for me, when it is just words, it often does go away. You, conversely, seem to be a 'bull by the horns' guy. Perhaps (not sure) there is something for both of us to learn from the other here. In Him -Lon

 

[ok doser]

I see two possibilities.

1. Reagan was racist in 1971, in which case, who cares?

2. Reagan was not racist in 1971, in which case, who cares?