Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What is your definition of racism?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by jgarden View Post
    If you happen to be a visible minority, other than "white," you're not prepared to wait another 50 years before "racist" comments made by Trump in the White House become public!
    wait - so trump is responsible for statements made by governor reagan in 1971?
    If I was a "black" American serving in the military, I'd have second thoughts about putting my life in harms way for a "Commander and Chief" who thought of me as a "monkey!"
    i don't think we had a lot of Tanzanian nationals serving in the US military when Reagan was president
    How are "black" Americans with member(s) of their family who served with distinction and/or killed/wounded in defence of the nation supposed to react when their president makes degrading racist comments, while his supporters, like "ok doser," respond with "who cares?"

    how are they supposed to react?



    by flinging their poo?

    eating bananas?

    monkey stuff?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
      Maybe you should. Maybe it would help you see something that has your machinery off calibration. It's certainly within the realm of possibility. I'm not speaking to your situation with authority, only noting potential in it.
      MOST of psychoanalysis is projecting. It just doesn't listen very well. It is, imho, the egocentric center of psychology. It is more interested in its opinions. Problem: It is more often than not, a reflection on the analyst rather than the subject. What that means? The psychoanalyst is giving me 'their' problem with my character. 1) It is egocentric so does no help unless the analyst isn't arrogant and can look at themselves over it 2) they are generally making a living at this which is still egocentrism and 3) they are often, as was Freud, wrong.

      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
      Except that I didn't say or infer that, let alone believe it. I'm not sure why you do.
      For the most part, nobody does self-analysis like I do. I'm totally open to anything ringing true, including where I stand on race issues. I'm convinced, after years of sincerely trying to be color blind, that I'm doing what I'm supposed to. On the other hand, I do indeed see what any particular group has as strengths and weaknesses and don't give room for excuses. It 'may' look like racism, but its not, I'm an equal opportunity hopeful and offender. I hope the best but certainly call out the worst while trying to be careful in doing so. Such may not be how another does it but the problem is, that person may call me 'racist' or 'blind' for it. I'm fully convinced such is incorrect and really 'their' coloring of the issue. They (and sometimes you) simply aren't listening. It is trying to call a club a spade. Yes both black cards with stems. Wrong on the suits.

      As a rule they don't, though there have always been poor whites. Part of the power of racism as an institution is that it gave the lowest rung of whites in the social order status above the highest black. That is a form of power. Desegregation broke its back, for the most part.
      As a 'general' rule, sure. Without exception? No. This is more of a statistics and politics kind of statement. Surely you must concede that poverty and desperate childhood have no colors? These kinds of statements and assessments make me wonder if your head was caught only in one color as a lawyer. I'd suppose, because of the politics and statistical need, that'd be true, but I don't know. I'm just guessing. For as much as you might see me as hard-headed, I'd hope you've been told the same a time or two. I think you miss key points at times. Important? I don't think so. In the spectrum of discussion, the more important is that we are specifically addressing Racism, so I think regardless, the dialogue is good and important. There is no ability or meaning behind the societal frustration without this kind of interaction.
      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
      I don't know why you believe this narrative, but it didn't come from me.
      My point is that I do empathize. Not necessarily better, but differently perhaps than others.


      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
      Focusing is an interesting choice. I'd say reflection is good and helps anyone who has the tools for it. A child doesn't.
      As a teacher, you need to be very careful with these kinds of statements. We do know developmentally, kids have certain ability at certain ages, but it isn't stagnant. Extremely hard circumstances can erase childhood and cause a child, without the where-with-all, yes, but makes that child 'reflect.' I've been extremely self-analytical since early childhood. My world just didn't make sense. The abuses didn't make sense. The teachers tearing into me for not 'paying attention' didn't add up. So, I didn't have the where-with-all to make sense, but the attempt was necessary.


      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
      This is obviously and understandably a delicate subject. I've said what I can on it and maybe you'll find value in that at some point. In any event, I won't raise it again.
      A guy cut across the road today in front of me and I thought "you are driving like a monkey!" I saw moments later it was a guy and that he was black. There was no intention of being 'racist' in the comment. I was simply thinking of what someone swerving over the line would have to be if he/she were an animal. Derogatory? Yes, in the sense that I was calling their ability into question. If someone had seen and heard me say "monkey" I'm sure they'd assume it was racially motivated. While it may not be the wisest to give another the same benefit of doubt, it 1) was yet a 'poor' statement, but not intentionally so other than toward their immediate driving ability and 2) even if motivated by a previous ill, may not have been repeated by the same intent. Entirely too generous? It may be, but I yet think we Christians need to be most careful when disparaging anybody. I remembered this week that God has called us to reconciliation, not part of the political rivalry of the nation, nor feeding conflicts by taking sides. In this case, the injured party isn't wholly described and I yet think it dredging ill to bring up new hurts best left buried. In this thread, I think it well-worth discussion because it is clearly about this topic, but I think it too the better value to steer from causing or potentially causing further harm when we can.


      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
      We/us thinking and the urge to speak for the larger toward the least empowered isn't exactly helping you here. I get that a lot of white people are quietly (or not so) thinking, "What's enough? What else?" And who made the majority that sponsored the root of the problem the one that gets to decide when its desire over need, to once again dictate what they should have and when it's reasonable?
      Its a good series of questions. Isn't it found in grace? One wants it to be enough, the other wants it to continue because for them, it isn't. Between us? Erring on the side of love and grace. Faithful are the wounds. Having had many wounds, I'm very familiar with the good ones and have a good deal of trust. I had a surgery that I deem now 'unnecessary.' I'm not a doctor, but having looked into this, I think I could have gotten away with a much smaller scar.

      I guess I'm saying its healed, either way. Scars can cause problems, but most have little inconvenience.




      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
      Sounds like good intentions absent a game plan, but it's too far off the racism path for me to trod here.
      Well, they thought they had one. It was naive. With you, I don't believe it good for a side discussion. It was rather, regarding how much we ask and place on society. It goes back to your statements above about how much and how far we entertain a problem. I believe, and am pretty sure with you, that we go so far as to actually addressing problems and those needs. We seem to have different points of cut-off and to me, that's the basic difference and point of discussion. In a nutshell, I think our values are mostly the same, just how much is needed to actually address each of the problems we are seeing.

      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
      Slavery was removed a hundred years before people of color (and their allies) had to suffer beatings and even death to simply possess the rights every citizen should expect as a matter of course. Those people are very much among us today.
      I disagree. They are two separate issues. Those in slavery, was my point, are gone. Now you may make associations, certainly, but I yet believe my point stands that bringing up the slavery or slave ownership of your, my, and their ancestors is counterproductive. Treatment of simply 'people' after, should be treated upon the premise of transition. People who have been through that don't need their great great grandfather's history to 'feel' through. All it does is dredges up harms to those 'who are not me, nor did I know them.'

      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
      But the "making you a slave" tells me that not all abuse is the same. You remembered that motivation. Again, I'm not going to bring it up, but if and when you do it's reasonable to allow me to respond on the point.
      In this thread, it is necessary at least in this point in time. Between us, there are values against the mistreatment of other human beings. There are also shared values regarding the discussion of any particular group without derogatory names and descriptions. On this particular, I'd say not that I look the other way, but that I'm trying to apply Christ-honoring discussion of what helps and what does not. Where we differ, I also value. Where you might see mine in a less honoring light, I rather try to value what another is bringing to the discussion. We may still disagree, but I do believe your motivations for your values seek to honor Him.

      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
      A lot of psychoanalysis involves very active listening. And, depending on who you're seeing, interaction.
      While I realize a lot of psychoanalysis does try to actively listen, I'm not sure the mark is hit as often as intention. "Digging deeper" for root problems, if assessed correctly, is very helpful and such is the goal of good psychoanalysis but there are problems. Misdiagnosis/wrong assessment, inability of the analyzer, labeling problems where none exist or exist in an entirely different area, etc.
      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
      But I'm always listening to you and intently.
      It is hard to do over the internet (if not impossible - we can read and grasp what another expresses, but its very limited) but thank you, brother.


      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
      No, Lon. Those tropes aren't the best way to illustrate being incompetent or unable. But they're a top tier way to quickly establish a lot of presumptions that would include that incapacity. That's what racist tropes do. Reagan learned that one, understood the context and applied it.
      Okay, he was an intelligent man and it is surely reasonable to make this assumption, but again, for me, I just don't like doing so 1) when he is dead 2) when a man can be intelligent, yet at times inept, and 3) when such may or may not express someone's overall. While I can surely see your point, I just don't like doing so when a person is dead. One day, someone may bring up something poor Billy Graham had once said. Such will be a very sad day and I will be ashamed both of those who shared it, repeated it, and me for having heard. It isn't that people cannot fall, it is rather that I'm wondering what kind of people we are, that'd bring up and discuss such. To me, it just seems too close to the definition of poor speech and content. Do we need to? Sometimes, and surely in this thread, now. I just have a huge reticence for doing so, if I can help it. I didn't bash Obama, by example. You may read about things that I believe have hurt our nation, but even then, I try to avoid most 'bashing' threads.

      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
      No, the point was they did something he fundamentally disagreed with and their opposition angered him. That anger and opposition led him to reveal a bit of how he chose to value them and their actions. And it's disappointing.
      A little confused. It looks like you agreed with me, so the 'no' beginning doesn't make as much sense.
      Are you saying: "Yes, I agree the remark was against what he saw as an inept and poor decisions"
      or "No, he was saying all blacks are backwards shoeless monkeys"?


      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
      If you're white? Without question.
      I'm not sure. I think it always inappropriate, like calling any large woman a 'hippo' but it'd not be racist simply because someone called a heavy woman of color one. Perhaps, in this, I'm saying that the 'racist' bins are wrong. I'm not disagreeing on 'inappropriate' but on whether something said is particular, in unfairness, toward a certain group of people. I'm unsure if calling a black woman an ape is less offensive or more offensive than calling any particular woman an albino ape. Rather, what one means by the comparison, is necessary I'd think. Was my comment, 'driving like a monkey' more or less inappropriate (if inappropriate) because the man was black? Isn't the comparison rather the way he was driving (not that I actually know what a monkey drives like, so it may have been an insult to a good-driving monkey)?


      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
      I don't believe she means any women look like apes. But it's the best way to proffer an insult and she used it. I think that gives us insight into her thinking.
      I appreciate someone who is as analytical as I tend to be. It can become tedious to most, so I'm both pleasantly surprised and encouraged by your continued discussion here.

      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
      I don't believe most people have trouble seeing it, except in themselves. In others it's relatively easy. Especially when they trade in the rhetoric of racists.


      I think it's sometimes less obvious and sometimes patently obvious. This would be the fairly obvious end. What I've been trying to get at is why you see it as something more difficult.
      Let's take my 'driving like a monkey' comment. I had no intention of disparaging the man's color, just his (or her at the time) driving ability. It 'looks' like I might have made a racist comment and I think I'd be 'guilty' if someone pronounced it. I did say it. I did say it regarding a black man. End of story?

      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
      It wasn't unrelated for the reason I've given you now two or three times that you've chosen to ignore in route to repeating this mantra, Lon.They might well ask, "Why are you bringing this into an unrelated topic?" And the answer would be as I gave it to you, that the point was to meet the attempt to use unsupported rhetoric in advancing a position by trading on the moral authority of the person quoted, and that undermining that assumption with a quote by the same author was, prima facie, the best means of answering it.
      Again, the relation is, for me, far and thus incredibly loose (and as I've said, for me, inappropriate as well). Do I want to drill this? No! I'd rather drip it, I was just trying to give feedback as to why.

      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
      No. The notice is that when angered and opposed, not even directly in this case, he chose a racist trope to describe black people that did it.
      Originally posted by jgarden View Post
      If I was a "black" American serving in the military, I'd have second thoughts about putting my life in harms way for a "Commander and Chief" who thought of me as a "monkey!"

      How are "black" Americans with member(s) of their family who served with distinction and/or killed/wounded in defence of the nation supposed to react when their president makes degrading racist comments, while his supporters, like "ok doser," respond with "who cares?"
      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
      Insensitive, but not racist. Irish jokes about drinking are similar.
      Insensitive, but I disagree. "Race" is about heredity. "Ethnicity" is rather how you are grouped according to choices. When Reagan said "monkey" it could have been ethnic or maybe not even that far reaching. "Don't wear shoes" is definitely ethnic, and not race related. Because of this, I yet think some accusations today are unfair and wrongheaded. Note that I'm not at all disagreeing with the appropriateness of the statements. That isn't my contention. Rather, it is 'how far and how accurate' that indictment goes. Without dredging up the propriety of it in light of Reagan's societal comment, I'm rather asking if the extent of the accusation is provably fair (not much more than that EXCEPT to learn about and appropriately empathize with the topic of this thread).


      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
      If by careful you mean clear, sure. If you mean we shouldn't project our standards onto the past, I'd say it depends. If no one understood how germs work I can forgive doctors for not sterilizing instruments.
      Yes, good expansion on my 'careful' intent and thank you for the clarity.


      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
      I think he would have disparaged Swedish diplomats for the same action. But he wouldn't have used the terms he used, and that's the point. Words mean things. Tropes carry extra baggage as a part of their function. He chose a racist one because the men were black and opposed him, not because they simply opposed him.
      Here's another question: If Reagan called them "Albino" nitwits who cannot even rule themselves" both ethnic AND racist?
      I think it is. Can we say anything we want about someone with a similar color with impunity of racism attribute?

      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
      II'm not really sure what you mean, though I seem to have come in second in the point with you on whatever it is.
      It was a poorly framed first-draft to say: We express differently, in our disagreements, but it is seldom over the values, but rather over applications (what we came away with hearing Reagan's comments here, for example: Different take, yet holding similar in our values -We just sometimes get there a different way so I see our disagreement more toward execution, not a difference in what we truly value.

      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
      II think there's the man and there's the mission. It's one reason I stopped the whole pedestal thing a long while back.
      For me, somewhat. "Follow me, as I follow Christ" does leave room for poor choices, but it also sets about emulating another. It isn't a pedestal per say, but an appreciation that 'hardly notices when another does it wrong.' Such applies to believers. I'm not sure if Reagan loved the Lord as a new creation, but it seemed so. His strength was not so much his spiritual example, but his ability to tie faith into the execution of his office. There may be some pedestal left in there, as I appreciate he mostly exemplified, for me, how that job should be done, but it isn't that I know much more about him than that.


      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
      It was about a way through the tendency, the institutionalized evil of seeing color as a lessening. To do that, you have to make sure the offending party understands their practice and its impact.

      That's why he marched and pled particulars. Not because he wanted us to live in them, but because he hoped we might, in wrestling with our national demons, someday rid ourselves of them.
      Eloquent and meaningful. I had to 'get over' learning of his affairs to begin to appreciate again, what he actually did accomplish.


      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
      We can't forget vaccinations until the disease is defeated.
      Again, I think it is more about the execution that tends to have us at some odds, not the need. I see it.
      My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
      Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
      Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
      Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
      No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
      Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

      ? Yep

      Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

      ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

      Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Lon View Post
        It 'may' look like racism, but its not....
        one of the problems with a discussion like this is that usually they ensue without a firm definition of terms

        what one person calls racism, i may not


        I think it always inappropriate, like calling any large woman a 'hippo' but it'd not be racist simply because someone called a heavy woman of color one.
        do you remember this incident? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_buffalo_incident


        I think it always inappropriate, like calling any large woman a 'hippo' ...
        how about "fat"?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ok doser View Post
          One of the problems with a discussion like this is that usually they ensue without a firm definition of terms: what one person calls racism, I may not
          True, some of it is ethnicity (group behavior) rather than genetics (race) by observation. The lines are blurred and this is a bit of what the thread OP is asking/addressing.

          Behaviors of a certain group are ethnic, rather than racist ("...don't wear shoes..."). The 'monkey' line may be about genetics "blacks look like monkeys" or about choosing ineptly 'like a monkey (ethnic comparison, not racist).'

          Even if someone says 'all blacks look like monkeys' it doesn't necessarily follow that the comment is racist: A nephew of a friend was walking with him down the street. Having never seen a black man in his life, he said "Look Uncle! Look at the monkey!" The boy, while needing a correction, "No, that is a human," was not marked with racism but misapprehension. I'd heard a few missionary stories about Africans labeling the white missionaries as the equivalent of 'albinos' but those are not racist either. It is simply a comparison, likely with no intent of disparaging (maybe). The intent is important lest we loose being innocent until proven guilty in our courts.


          Originally posted by ok doser View Post
          Had not heard of this.


          Originally posted by ok doser View Post
          how about "fat"?
          One is a condition, the other a name. We as Christians want to be careful not to hurt another yet speak the truth, in love. Rather than saying "Fatty!" or "You're fat!" It is better, before God, to say "I'd like to see you in better health. What can I do to help you?" Or "Have you considered walking every day?"

          "Appropriate" should start with "How best to love or help another." If you don't know the guy or girl, the more appropriate may be to say nothing. "If you cannot say anything nice...."
          My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
          Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
          Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
          Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
          No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
          Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

          ? Yep

          Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

          ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

          Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

          Comment


          • Haven't you lot heard? Everything is racist.
            Where is the evidence for a global flood?
            E≈mc2
            "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

            "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
            -Bob B.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
              Haven't you lot heard? Everything is racist.
              That's racist!
              All of my ancestors are human.
              Originally posted by Squeaky
              That explains why your an idiot.
              Originally posted by God's Truth
              Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
              Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
              (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

              1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
              (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

              Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Lon View Post
                MOST of psychoanalysis is projecting.
                That's not an objectively true statement. In any event, that makes further discussion of it or on it a bit pointless. So I'll move on.

                It 'may' look like racism, but its not,
                What, particularly, may "look like racism," but isn't?

                I wrote, "Part of the power of racism as an institution is that it gave the lowest rung of whites in the social order status above the highest black. That is a form of power. "
                As a 'general' rule, sure. Without exception? No.
                You should apply that understanding to your approach about what constitutes a racist. Anyway, to be born even with a little "black blood" was to invalidate your marriage to a white woman in many states (and all Southern states) for a very long time and to mark you as something lesser in relation to the larger, white society.

                Surely you must concede that poverty and desperate childhood have no colors?
                Surely you understand that blacks are and have been disproportionately poor for generations.

                I wrote, "Focusing is an interesting choice. I'd say reflection is good and helps anyone who has the tools for it. A child doesn't."
                As a teacher, you need to be very careful with these kinds of statements.
                I believe that, just as I believe I was being very careful. A traumatized child isn't in a position to properly process that sort of experience without serious guidance. Their biological seat of reason is impaired and they lack the experiential to contextualize it. It's extraordinarily difficult for adults without anything like their natural impairments.

                My world just didn't make sense. The abuses didn't make sense.
                Just so. You would have needed a great deal of time and help to process that event or those events. Without that the chance of a healthy conclusion is dramatically diminished.

                A guy cut across the road today in front of me and I thought "you are driving like a monkey!" I saw moments later it was a guy and that he was black.
                Curious. But you are aware that the use of monkey in an insulting context, aimed at people, and that it tends to be racially charged, has a deep and sorted past in that regard. So why would your subconscious make that choice?

                While it may not be the wisest to give another the same benefit of doubt, it 1) was yet a 'poor' statement
                Reagan knew exactly who he was talking about and made a racist statement about them.

                In a nutshell, I think our values are mostly the same, just how much is needed to actually address each of the problems we are seeing.
                To quote the poet, "We are more alike, my friends, than we are unalike."

                I disagree. They are two separate issues. Those in slavery, was my point, are gone.
                Yeah, that kind of compartmentalization is pervasive in the South and just as wrong. The one is the bastard son of the other. And they show how the "ending" of slavery was not the ending of harm by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, not that long after the South was back in the Union it began to systematically attempt to return the black to fields and subjugation using new legal inventions and old terms, like apprenticeships, that were de facto attempts to enslave the black population through other means. Those harmed, dehumanized in an obvious way by slavery continued to be dehumanized and harmed long after its abolishment.

                Okay, he was an intelligent man and it is surely reasonable to make this assumption, but again, for me, I just don't like doing so
                It's not about what's comforting or discomforting, but about what is observably true. I think that's important. More so when some lionize and present a sanitized version of a popular figure to advance an idea by means of that implied authority. I loved and love my grandfather, who hated the race but loved the individuals he knew of that race, and I think his was among the most benign of that infection of mind and character, but I will neither excuse or fail to note it if I want to see or represent the man. Intelligence without diligence is no bar to irrational belief. Look up Woodrow Wilson.

                While I can surely see your point, I just don't like doing so when a person is dead.
                I don't like the fact that Jefferson, who understood its evil, remained a functioning part of the slave trade. But like doesn't enter into it and it needs to be as known, or we may misunderstand our own vulnerability and mistakenly believe that harm comes only from the clearly evil and other.

                One day, someone may bring up something poor Billy Graham had once said.
                Already happened in his lifetime. While he championed desegregation and insisted upon it at his rallies, he made unfortunate, anti-Semitic remarks, which he owned and apologized for, to his credit, and publicly.

                Such will be a very sad day and I will be ashamed both of those who shared it, repeated it, and me for having heard.
                You're placing the shame in the wrong places. Why, I can't say. Graham recognized that and dealt with it, publicly.

                It isn't that people cannot fall, it is rather that I'm wondering what kind of people we are, that'd bring up and discuss such.
                People, I think, less likely to fall into a cult of personality and more likely to be diligent in examining the character of men who attempt to wrap themselves in the clothes of virtue, and/or ourselves.

                T
                o me, it just seems too close to the definition of poor speech and content. Do we need to? Sometimes, and surely in this thread, now. I just have a huge reticence for doing so, if I can help it. I didn't bash Obama, by example. You may read about things that I believe have hurt our nation, but even then, I try to avoid most 'bashing' threads.
                You should follow your conscience, to be sure.

                A little confused. It looks like you agreed with me, so the 'no' beginning doesn't make as much sense.
                Are you saying: "Yes, I agree the remark was against what he saw as an inept and poor decisions"
                or "No, he was saying all blacks are backwards shoeless monkeys"?
                Yeah, I've dealt with this peculiar litmus prior. By it, Reagan could stand in his front yard and call his black gardener, who just inadvertently lopped off the head of a prize rose, a "Good for nothing (N-bomb)" and you'd swear that he wasn't a racist unless he made it clear he thought that of every black man in existence. And that's just a nonsensical position to take, Lon. In point of fact, many a racist in the old, monied South, was brought up with that contempt for the race and lived with pockets of exception for the sake of reconciling that belief with a close quartered rebuttal in the form of some people, often generational, family servants, like nannies.

                Here, you'd written, "Reagan said 'monkey' and 'do not wear shoes.' Both seem to indicate 'backwards' unable to make good diplomatic decisions, and inept. That's the 'gist', not the racial remark you are seeing. It wasn't his point."

                And my no is a polite way of calling horsefeathers on the attempt. He used a racist trope. He knew what it was. It illustrated something about him. Hopefully, given the lack of similar but more public statements, it was a thing he warred with and rarely indulged.

                Let's take my 'driving like a monkey' comment. I had no intention of disparaging the man's color, just his (or her at the time) driving ability. It 'looks' like I might have made a racist comment and I think I'd be 'guilty' if someone pronounced it. I did say it. I did say it regarding a black man. End of story?
                Driving like a monkey isn't a racist trope, you didn't know the race of the man who was driving, and your comment was more about describing the act than the person. It's not much of a parallel for those reasons, though it's a curious thing to say. How many times in your life, prior to hearing about this use, have you used it? Who else, in your life, have you heard use it that way?

                When Reagan said "monkey" it could have been ethnic or maybe not even that far reaching.
                No, Lon, it couldn't, because it has a vital history that someone Reagan's age could not be unaware of and wasn't. I've seen some of the films he participated in. No, he knew the men he was noting, to restrict it as you insist, were black. And he knew the trope. He used it.

                "Don't wear shoes" is definitely ethnic, and not race related.
                Not really. He's made the animal connection and he follows it with a barely civilized shot, which is all the shoes remark reduces to. It's just a lesser connected charge, so to speak.

                Here's another question: If Reagan called them "Albino" nitwits who cannot even rule themselves" both ethnic AND racist?
                Reagan wouldn't be in a position to be racist within his own group/skin color. Racism begins with the belief in the inferiority of another race and the superiority of your own. From that belief power structures are born to support and advance the conclusions that follow. If I am better, inherently, I deserve more and it is right that I possess a sort of stewardship of the inferior. That sort of thing.

                I found Reagan likeable. I valued and value some of his contributions to our society. I cannot see the good in romanticizing him though, and I can see the harm in it.

                Eloquent and meaningful. I had to 'get over' learning of his affairs to begin to appreciate again, what he actually did accomplish.
                I've heard some of it, some of the disputed and some of the admitted. I find what the did and what he was attempting to do for black people both brave and good, but you know my view on pedestals. I don't use them.
                You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                Pro-Life






                Comment


                • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                  That's racist!


                  Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                  E≈mc2
                  "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                  "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                  -Bob B.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    That's not an objectively true statement. In any event, that makes further discussion of it or on it a bit pointless. So I'll move on.
                    Subjectively then. It might help you to understand there has been ongoing debate with us on two different sides. Probably subjective, but as it is an ongoing debate in psychology circles and public impression, yes, agree, moving on...

                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    What, particularly, may "look like racism," but isn't?
                    Ethnicity comments and derogatory. Close to racism, but not. Worth the delineation.

                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    I wrote, "Part of the power of racism as an institution is that it gave the lowest rung of whites in the social order status above the highest black. That is a form of power. "

                    You should apply that understanding to your approach about what constitutes a racist. Anyway, to be born even with a little "black blood" was to invalidate your marriage to a white woman in many states (and all Southern states) for a very long time and to mark you as something lesser in relation to the larger, white society.
                    Yes, understood and accepted (true regardless but I acquiesce is the point). This discussion among people, tends to "white-wash," that is, to bin categories that to me, are very much in need of separation and critical discernment. Broad strokes not only are the cause of racism problems but also of the response. For instance "Don't wear shoes" is not, in fact, racist. It is Ethnic comment. Need correction? Yes. While a good many don't wear shoes, because they are in poverty or prefer it, I believe it is Nike that donates etc. Perhaps not as much in the 1980's.


                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    Surely you understand that blacks are and have been disproportionately poor for generations.
                    Sort of. Look at your percentages, yes. By numbers though, a good many whites can indeed empathize having been in the exact same circumstances growing up.

                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    I wrote, "Focusing is an interesting choice. I'd say reflection is good and helps anyone who has the tools for it. A child doesn't."

                    I believe that, just as I believe I was being very careful. A traumatized child isn't in a position to properly process that sort of experience without serious guidance. Their biological seat of reason is impaired and they lack the experiential to contextualize it. It's extraordinarily difficult for adults without anything like their natural impairments.
                    They still grow into it, because they spend a lifetime trying to process it. I had no idea I had panic attacks and suffered PTSD. I was just trying to live a normal life. Developmentally, however, I was certainly able to grasp that something was wrong and that it was frightening. Don't undersell children due to the lack of development, what they don't have certainly can be compensated for. I was 12 when I realized I was more mature than my stepfather in some respects. That epiphany alone offered incredible insight.
                    I'm not sure you disagree on a lot of this but you worldview and experience may make you miss it as a teacher and parent. My only contention is to help you not miss it. Your child will come up with incredible insight because the kingdom belongs to 'such as these.' Sometimes, it'll be profound and seemingly much beyond their developmental stage.


                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    Just so. You would have needed a great deal of time and help to process that event or those events. Without that the chance of a healthy conclusion is dramatically diminished.
                    It is anyway. Scars heal very slowly. Deep scars and loss, (both physically and emotionally coincidentally) have phantom pains as well as pain and phantom pain, sometimes for life. Knowledge and grace are helpful enduring them.


                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    Curious. But you are aware that the use of monkey in an insulting context, aimed at people, and that it tends to be racially charged, has a deep and sorted past in that regard. So why would your subconscious make that choice?
                    I also call my dog a monkey: See this is where psychoanalysis, at least by a different person, is problematic. It shows as much or more (more often in my experience) what is in the mind of the analyzer. Only the Lord Jesus Christ could do psychoanalysis effectively, truly knowing our hearts and minds. Psychoanalysis is only as good as a person's ability to listen or whether God has given him the strictly spiritual gift of discernment.


                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    Reagan knew exactly who he was talking about and made a racist statement about them.
                    Well, one statement was likely racist and the other for certain, was ethnic, not racist. Going barefoot is not genetic.


                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    To quote the poet, "We are more alike, my friends, than we are unalike."
                    Always. We have a good deal of different thinking but surrounding the same values. Any who love Christ will grow closer together instead of further apart. Any time I've seen brothers/sisters having a permanent fallout this side of heaven, my heart aches.


                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    Yeah, that kind of compartmentalization is pervasive in the South and just as wrong. The one is the bastard son of the other. And they show how the "ending" of slavery was not the ending of harm by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, not that long after the South was back in the Union it began to systematically attempt to return the black to fields and subjugation using new legal inventions and old terms, like apprenticeships, that were de facto attempts to enslave the black population through other means. Those harmed, dehumanized in an obvious way by slavery continued to be dehumanized and harmed long after its abolishment.
                    I still believe strongly it needs to be treated as two separate issues specifically because there the slavery connection is about ownership and rights over another being whereas afterwards, the issue is prejudice. The hurt of the former is different than the harm of the second. While you are correct binning them both 'harm' one doesn't help when treating the other so for me 'slavery' is two steps back and we'll never address the real and current needs dredging up what is beyond the experience.

                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    It's not about what's comforting or discomforting, but about what is observably true. I think that's important. More so when some lionize and present a sanitized version of a popular figure to advance an idea by means of that implied authority. I loved and love my grandfather, who hated the race but loved the individuals he knew of that race, and I think his was among the most benign of that infection of mind and character, but I will neither excuse or fail to note it if I want to see or represent the man. Intelligence without diligence is no bar to irrational belief. Look up Woodrow Wilson.
                    I'd simply say "use sparingly" because such taints perceptions. It has somewhat to do with the scale of the harm done, I'd acquiesce, but I'd caution mentioning your grandfather too often over such because 1) it is the first introduction of your grandfather and his life to others, and such is disparaging and 2) because it, I think, may influence your reinforced memories as well. Certainly my own grandfather had issues that led to an incredibly early death, but he was a good man and loved his grandchildren. If I ever bring him up in a bad light, it'd have to be a direct good and assistance to someone hearing or I abstain. Neither good nor bad for comment, but I think this does mark a difference that is appreciable between us. I just have a reluctance that is also part of my discussion with Reagan as well, especially as he reminds me of my second step-father, who was a good but certainly imperfect man.

                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    I don't like the fact that Jefferson, who understood its evil, remained a functioning part of the slave trade. But like doesn't enter into it and it needs to be as known, or we may misunderstand our own vulnerability and mistakenly believe that harm comes only from the clearly evil and other.
                    Historical figures are somewhat of a necessary discussion when talking about 'how America got to this point' but I hadn't heard anything about Jefferson until college regarding slavery.

                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    Already happened in his lifetime. While he championed desegregation and insisted upon it at his rallies, he made unfortunate, anti-Semitic remarks, which he owned and apologized for, to his credit, and publicly.
                    :X I wasn't wanting to hear anything bad about Billy Graham, especially if he's forgiven for it

                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    You're placing the shame in the wrong places. Why, I can't say. Graham recognized that and dealt with it, publicly.
                    Again, I've a great reluctance to bring up ills about any man unless there is some great good that can come of it. Certainly the Bible gives us the poor history of men of God and in that, great hope and faith, love and embrace of grace come from these. If such is accomplished and the goal of bringing up other men's faults, I'm for it but for me, a means to the end and rarely. I try to parent by good example rather than bad about 10 to 1 or greater. This thread could use a lot of 'how to do race relations right.' The negative and remedial approach is less effective. Assessment is good, and needful, but after it is done, addressing proactively is better (at least for me).


                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    People, I think, less likely to fall into a cult of personality and more likely to be diligent in examining the character of men who attempt to wrap themselves in the clothes of virtue, and/or ourselves.
                    Whenever I teach a cult class, I try to address more the Biblical ideas of scripture than address the problems of every cult. If I'm successful, they will know a cult, by any name, whenever they see it.


                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    Yeah, I've dealt with this peculiar litmus prior. By it, Reagan could stand in his front yard and call his black gardener, who just inadvertently lopped off the head of a prize rose, a "Good for nothing (N-bomb)" and you'd swear that he wasn't a racist unless he made it clear he thought that of every black man in existence. And that's just a nonsensical position to take, Lon. In point of fact, many a racist in the old, monied South, was brought up with that contempt for the race and lived with pockets of exception for the sake of reconciling that belief with a close quartered rebuttal in the form of some people, often generational, family servants, like nannies.

                    Here, you'd written, "Reagan said 'monkey' and 'do not wear shoes.' Both seem to indicate 'backwards' unable to make good diplomatic decisions, and inept. That's the 'gist', not the racial remark you are seeing. It wasn't his point."

                    And my no is a polite way of calling horsefeathers on the attempt. He used a racist trope. He knew what it was. It illustrated something about him. Hopefully, given the lack of similar but more public statements, it was a thing he warred with and rarely indulged.
                    Even though such is a 'bin' remark, it isn't that one is trying to disparage even the person's race. Now certainly there is a history where it does and I'm not ignorant, but I'm also saying "its not ALWAYS racist." When I used monkey, it was just that a monkey, I imagined, wouldn't be able to drive between the lines. Of course my dog, who twists at times like a monkey (acrobatic) was on my mind and words that morning as I called him one. There certainly was not intention of comparing 'color' or 'look' to monkey of the driver. A black person might, by this discussion call someone white 'white.' Such could be taken as an offense if someone doesn't see themselves as 'white' by ethnicity, or color, or nationality. The offense at this point is 'racist' in nature but likely not racist by comment. In repetition, perhaps the person should avoid the term in the future. "Monkey" could be said kindly toward any acrobat, gymnast, or flexible being after a good fashion, regardless of genetic attribute. It can also be applied negatively, upon the same basis. In this case, Reagan was mad about one or two things: a poor decision, and what he saw as inept people making it. Was he really troubled by their genetic make-up at that point? Whatever the context, it drives how we must understand his racial and/or ethnic comment.

                    I believe another important consideration is this: There is a difference between Africans and Americans of color. The 'slavery' issue isn't part of such a discussion, for instance, nor does one equate the other, even in a racists mind. Short? There are too many factors involved for just the insult upon black Americans.


                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    Driving like a monkey isn't a racist trope, you didn't know the race of the man who was driving, and your comment was more about describing the act than the person. It's not much of a parallel for those reasons, though it's a curious thing to say. How many times in your life, prior to hearing about this use, have you used it? Who else, in your life, have you heard use it that way?
                    You've never said "he/she drives like a monkey?" Must be a North thing....


                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    No, Lon, it couldn't, because it has a vital history that someone Reagan's age could not be unaware of and wasn't. I've seen some of the films he participated in. No, he knew the men he was noting, to restrict it as you insist, were black. And he knew the trope. He used it.
                    It is hard to use fiction and fictional dialogue for developing values. Most of us don't espouse values portrayed on television. I tend to turn a lot of them off not wanting them in my home. For me, there is a disconnect between what films he was in verses what his values should be.


                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    Not really. He's made the animal connection and he follows it with a barely civilized shot, which is all the shoes remark reduces to. It's just a lesser connected charge, so to speak.
                    Look at the comparison: was Reagan concerned with their poor decision, or their skin color? What were the comments directed to, their genetics, or their ethnicity of ignorance/ineptitude? Such is the scope of the comments and should be considered in that more precise light. Was he trying to say all Africans were monkeys and wore no shoes?

                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    Reagan wouldn't be in a position to be racist within his own group/skin color. Racism begins with the belief in the inferiority of another race and the superiority of your own. From that belief power structures are born to support and advance the conclusions that follow. If I am better, inherently, I deserve more and it is right that I possess a sort of stewardship of the inferior. That sort of thing.
                    I agree on the definition here and it could serve as an answer to the OP.

                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    I found Reagan likeable. I valued and value some of his contributions to our society. I cannot see the good in romanticizing him though, and I can see the harm in it.
                    Of similar opinion and assessment. I, however, may romanticize/pedastal in reminiscing. Not sure if I do, but I do remember him and use him as a standard I'd like to see other Presidents rise to.

                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    I've heard some of it, some of the disputed and some of the admitted. I find what the did and what he was attempting to do for black people both brave and good, but you know my view on pedestals. I don't use them.
                    For me, the difficulty is that there is only one who measures up to the pedestal. Yet, I hold the Apostles to a pedestal and they do not disappoint. I think we look for role-models to help us in our own walk and journey, and that's no poor thing. In Him -Lon
                    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                    ? Yep

                    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                    ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Lon View Post
                      ... This thread could use a lot of 'how to do race relations right.'

                      Morgan Freeman nails it:

                      Comment


                      • Learn to read what is written.

                        _____
                        The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
                        ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

                        Comment


                        • God didn't create racism, but did He create racial tension?

                          Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                          Morgan Freeman nails it:
                          Spoiler
                          He has a good sensibility. I've appreciated a good many things he's said.

                          Another issue regarding this discussion comes from Genesis 11
                          Genesis 115 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”8 So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel[c]—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

                          In the next chapter, God removes Abraham from his own people in Ur and calls him to a new land away and apart from all peoples. This caused both ethnic and racial tensions and it needs us Christians to discuss what is supposed to be purposeful as well as what is supposed to be (evil) overcome with good. Under the gospel, there is no separation. None at all, but as we look at where we come from, it is from diverse groups and people, who mostly look to their own interests. The problem with a one-world-government is that it can and will drive agenda and the gospel will be little welcome nor can it exist unless 1) all Christians are gone or at the end, when all Christians are under Christ. The separation, it seems is important for the nature of man without God else they'd be unified but against all that really matters and stuck in concerns of this temporal world.

                          When Christ came, it was not to unite all people, but unite all people who come to/are in Him.

                          Thoughts?

                          In Him -Lon
                          My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                          Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                          Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                          Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                          No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                          Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                          ? Yep

                          Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                          ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                          Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                          Comment


                          • "Nope. In case you hadn't noticed, in America, race is tearing us apart."

                            Transformational Marxism, from the Frankfurt School, is using racism to tear us apart. Transformational Marxism is deceptive and does not usually advertise itself as being Marxist. The Transformational Marxists have also used Feminism as a tool to tear us apart. The goal of Marxism is to destroy the Culture that has made it impossible for Marxism to take over countries in the West, and Political Correctness, by use of major groups in the society who can be seen as having been victimized are being used to divide the country and eventually take it over for totalitarianism.

                            Yet, at this point in time, the Democratic Party Left is working against many of the Blacks, for example, something which some Blacks have woken up to, and are talking about.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X