Reagan's racist comments
One Republican speaks out and is cast out.
I'm sure some of you have seen this, but if you haven't check it out- and if you have, listen again. Princeton prof Eddie Glaude (MSNBC) offers advice and a chance to be free to anyone who can hear it.
I think he accurately limns where we are with regard to race in this country. It's just a moment on TV like many others, but he hits many truths with a passion and honesty that is unique for the established pundits who appear on TV daily. Politically and professionally this type of 'reckless' talk is frowned on by the gatekeepers- who prefer that everybody play a distinct role. Glaude acknowledges this and still chooses to let it rip. The act allows him to free himself and in the process offer freedom.
I'm posting this because I think the moment is perfect for the times.
RIP Toni Morrison
I hadn’t seen it, so thank you. I hope readers of the Rawstory account aren’t misled by the repeated references to “emotional” and instead witness for themselves what you better described as Glaude’s honesty, passion and accuracy. That combo can’t be sidestepped as easily as “emotional.”
flimbro said:
Re proeasdf
A couple days ago we 'discovered' that Ronald Reagan was a racist. Most of Black and brown America said- oh c'mon now GTFOH.
Anybody who just now discovered that Ronald Reagan was a racist has been asleep for a looooong time
basil said:
yahooyahoo said:Yes, by my estimation about 40% of US citizens are racists (which corresponds to about 90% of all Republicans). I am actually encouraged by the 10% of Republicans that aren't racists (that a higher percentage than I expected).
There are a lot of racists in the United States.
Only 24% of Americans identify as republican.
What's the idea with the percentages? Are they really offered with the thought that numbering the size of racist America will somehow make it easier to confront racism? And if that is the game plan, how is that schematic effected or skewed when lawmakers, major corporate donors, policy think tanks, and the President support and condone racist policies? Does their adherence and obvious influence require you to weight the racist side accordingly? I just don't get the point. Is it just another diversion, an effort to place 'blame' elsewhere and by doing so avoid responsibility? "I'm not the problem, THEY are".
Wouldn't it make more sense to assume that ALL of us play a role in either supporting or condemning racism? Our national origin is rooted in racism, our economy and society depended and depends on racism, so isn't it somewhat naive to believe that we're not ALL connected to it and therefore responsible for eradicating it (if in fact, we all agree that eradication is the plan)? The same way we all play a role in gender bias. I've never seen anyone offer a percentage for the number of sexists in the US. Why not?
America is a racist country by design. Americans are subjected to racism- where you exist on the Beneficiary versus Target spectrum and how you feel about that placement determines your perspective and your action.
We have a very long way to go toward understanding the severity of our sickness. I think the very first step is to acknowledge the illness and decide whether or not it's something we think we can live with.
Toni Morrison:
basil said:
flimbro said:
Re proeasdf
A couple days ago we 'discovered' that Ronald Reagan was a racist. Most of Black and brown America said- oh c'mon now GTFOH.Anybody who just now discovered that Ronald Reagan was a racist has been asleep for a looooong time
Another smear. I never said nor insinuated the following: "Re proeasdf A couple days ago we 'discovered' that Ronald Reagan was a racist."
In previous posts, I was merely commenting, as many others on MOL were commenting, on the recent Atlantic article about a racist conversation between RMN and RR. See: https://www.theatlantic.com/id...
Smears are used when people (such as basil) lack substantive arguments.
basil why do you lack substantive arguments?
basil why is your first instinct to smear those with whom you have a different POV?
proeasdf said:
Smears are used when people (such as basil) lack substantive arguments.
Not always. Flimbro just smeared us all as being complicit in racism. It’s a substantive argument.
First show some signs that substantive arguments have any impact on you. Then we can discuss your complaint.
proeasdf said:
basil said:
flimbro said:
Re proeasdf
A couple days ago we 'discovered' that Ronald Reagan was a racist. Most of Black and brown America said- oh c'mon now GTFOH.Anybody who just now discovered that Ronald Reagan was a racist has been asleep for a looooong time
Another smear. I never said nor insinuated the following: "Re proeasdf A couple days ago we 'discovered' that Ronald Reagan was a racist."
In previous posts, I was merely commenting, as many others on MOL were commenting, on the recent Atlantic article about a racist conversation between RMN and RR. See: https://www.theatlantic.com/id...
Smears are used when people (such as basil) lack substantive arguments.
basil why do you lack substantive arguments?
basil why is your first instinct to smear those with whom you have a different POV?
Good Lordt
Give it a rest. You just may have difficulty recognizing Tone in a post. I wasn't suggesting that YOU just discovered RR was a racist. I was pointing out the fact that America in general, white America and it's mainstream press in particular, is fond of 'discovering' the obvious on a delayed timetable. And, by always being late to the realization (Trump is racist, Reagan is racist, America is full of crazy white supremacists with guns, powerful men do effed up sht to women on a daily basis etc etc.) they effectively stall or curtail any real action or change and by doing so maintain the status quo.
I was attempting to make the point that in my opinion, your inclination to deflect attention from the main/real issue (which you're still doing at this very moment) was not unique, that it was standard operating procedure in our society.
flimbro said:
Good Lordt
Give it a rest. You just may have difficulty recognizing Tone in a post. I wasn't suggesting that YOU just discovered RR was a racist. I was pointing out the fact that America in general, white America and it's mainstream press in particular, is fond of 'discovering' the obvious on a delayed timetable. And, by always being late to the realization (Trump is racist, Reagan is racist, America is full of crazy white supremacists with guns, powerful men do effed up sht to women on a daily basis etc etc.) they effectively stall or curtail any real action or change and by doing so maintain the status quo.
I was attempting to make the point that in my opinion, your inclination to deflect attention from the main/real issue (which you're still doing at this very moment) was not unique, that it was standard operating procedure in our society.
flimbro, I agree with your comment as follows: I [flimbro] wasn't suggesting that YOU just discovered RR was a racist.
The smear was engineered, created and posted by basil (nothing to do with you, flimbro). I was merely responding to basil's smear.
Sorry if that was not clear in my posting to basil on this issue.
proeasdf said:
flimbro, I agree with your comment as follows: I [flimbro] wasn't suggesting that YOU just discovered RR was a racist.
The smear was engineered, created and posted by basil (nothing to do with you, flimbro). I was merely responding to basil's smear.
Sorry if that was not clear in my posting to basil on this issue.
it still isn't clear to me that you even understood the point of basil's comment.
Interesting summary.
proeasdf said:
flimbro, I agree with your comment as follows: I [flimbro] wasn't suggesting that YOU just discovered RR was a racist.
The smear was engineered, created and posted by basil (nothing to do with you, flimbro). I was merely responding to basil's smear.
Sorry if that was not clear in my posting to basil on this issue.
OK. No problem.
Little too much telenovela up in here. Time for a break.
yahooyahoo said:
Interesting summary.
Interesting that I can’t trace that definition of racism, widely cited (and tinkered with) on the web, to a primary USCCR source. I’d be interested to see how dated the definition is, and if there’s context for what “an attitude ... enacted individually ... that surbordinates” is meant to cover.
Aside from that, yes, it’s a definition in wide use. That’s what definitions do — reflect usage, which changes over time. It’s just as easy to find other sources that set the terms of racism along the lines that commenters here have raised. In the link you found, Professor Vernellia Randall wrote, “In any discussion on race relations it is important that all of us know the meaning and definition of terms used.” OK. I think we know by now how participants in this discussion define and mean the term racism.
DaveSchmidt said:
yahooyahoo said:
Interesting summary.
Interesting that I can’t trace that definition of racism, widely cited (and tinkered with) on the web, to a primary USCCR source. I’d be interested to see how dated the definition is, and if there’s context for what “an attitude ... enacted individually ... that surbordinates” is meant to cover.
Aside from that, yes, it’s a definition in wide use. That’s what definitions do — reflect usage, which changes over time. It’s easy to find other sources that set the terms of racism along the lines that commenters here have raised. In the link you found, Professor Vernellia Randall wrote, “In any discussion on race relations it is important that all of us know the meaning and definition of terms used.” OK. I think we know by now how participants in this discussion define and mean the term racism.
I think the source or the date of origin of the definition is inconsequential.
Only people living a life where racism is discussed safely, remotely and in the abstract, care about this definition. It's academic.
On the other hand, if you're Black or brown, living in the real world in an environment where systemic life-altering racism is part of your every day you know that your personal attitude, enacted individually in an attempt to subordinate the white people who oppress YOU- has absolutely no weight, import or impact on those white people. It's just YOUR attitude- nothing more. However, you also understand that the attitude of white citizens enacted individually is imbued with the power of institutional support in the form of white law enforcement and white politicians who work in tandem with a white judicial system and white penal institutions. White America knows this as well. That's what's happening every time you see one of those stories about some random white person calling the cops on some random Black people for seemingly innocuous reasons. They understand that their racism, while also enacted individually, comes with the power and heft of the state.
It really is as simple as knowing and understanding the terminology and being able to apply it to the world we live in- today.
For example, if you were having a conversation about LGBTQ+ rights with a collection of people that included representatives from those groups you would be lost intellectually (and possibly ridiculed) if your viewpoint depended on a googled definition of "gender" or "sex" or perhaps didn't include an accurate understanding of the word cis-gendered. If you had respect for that group and really wanted to participate and expand your horizons in the process, you'd avail yourself of the current information.
Same thing with regard to racism versus bigotry or prejudice.
flimbro said:
I think the source or the date of origin of the definition is inconsequential.
My idea was to rattle this definition a little, and make it less secure to cling to if anyone else found it interesting, by seeing if it was left over from an earlier decade or explained by the commission in terms just like this:
However, you also understand that the attitude of white citizens enacted individually is imbued with the power of institutional support in the form of white law enforcement and white politicians who work in tandem with a white judicial system and white penal institutions.
Absolutely, I get it, rattle it baby.
The bottom line is that, and I say this with all due respect to the wonderful USCCR commissioners from today and yesterday- they're not appointed because they're radical thinkers. The young activist in me scoffed at the idea that a government built on and committed to maintaining white supremacy would look for credit for appointing people to work as watchdogs against white supremacy. The old activist just laughs.
So, guess the boat's sailed on proseasdf explaining why he decided "average income of 100k or more" is a relevant measure of.. something? Or of his explaining his understanding of institutional power? Or why, despite folks on this thread explicitly defining what they mean when they say "racism" he insists on instead using his own definition and so completely sidestepping the point? I suppose, in other words, that yet again, despite all the (surely sincere) protestations that he's just looking for a substantive discussion on racism, we can expect a pass on all the many opportunities he's had on this thread to actually engage in one?
I suppose it's easier to decline any discussion not on your own terms. Less homework that way.
flimbro said:
Absolutely, I get it, rattle it baby.
Meant to add: That excerpt of yours I quoted — I hadn’t thought of it that way. I don’t want your candor to get a big head, so please give my thanks to your clarity.
PVW said:
So, guess the boat's sailed on proseasdf explaining why he decided "average income of 100k or more" is a relevant measure of.. something? Or of his explaining his understanding of institutional power? Or why, despite folks on this thread explicitly defining what they mean when they say "racism" he insists on instead using his own definition and so completely sidestepping the point? I suppose, in other words, that yet again, despite all the (surely sincere) protestations that he's just looking for a substantive discussion on racism, we can expect a pass on all the many opportunities he's had on this thread to actually engage in one?
I suppose it's easier to decline any discussion not on your own terms. Less homework that way.
Previously answered regarding average income. Additionally I merely asked questions. Why don't you explain your definition of institutional power. You seem hung up on average income as a possible proxy for power in a society. Tell us how you would analyze which groups have dominance in a society. This all started with me pointing out that DB's definition of racism could have unexpected and unintended consequences.
proeasdf said:
PVW said:
So, guess the boat's sailed on proseasdf explaining why he decided "average income of 100k or more" is a relevant measure of.. something? Or of his explaining his understanding of institutional power? Or why, despite folks on this thread explicitly defining what they mean when they say "racism" he insists on instead using his own definition and so completely sidestepping the point? I suppose, in other words, that yet again, despite all the (surely sincere) protestations that he's just looking for a substantive discussion on racism, we can expect a pass on all the many opportunities he's had on this thread to actually engage in one?
I suppose it's easier to decline any discussion not on your own terms. Less homework that way.
Previously answered.
Q.E.D.
proeasdf said:
This all started with me pointing out that DB's definition of racism could have unexpected and unintended consequences.
A recap:
Drummerboy’s comment: You can't really be racist unless you're working from a position of institutional power. Do not confuse racism with bigotry.
Your reply: Using your analysis of racism, it is NOT possible for anyone to be be anti-Semitic, because those of the Jewish faith or ethnicity are the predominant group in the US (as demonstrated by having the highest average income in the US).
Your deduction was a fallacy from the start, for at least a couple of reasons. First, if you’re going to argue that Jews have institutional power, DB’s analysis means only that Jews can be racist. To get your inference — that Jews can’t be victims of anti-Semitism — you had to turn that on its head. Second, institutional power isn’t defined by any single characteristic. Flimbro gave you three: white, straight, male. If you add Christian, then maybe you can get an idea of how institutional power makes room for anti-Semitism, too.
proeasdf said:
Why don't you explain your definition of institutional power. You seem hung up on average income as a possible proxy for power in a society. Tell us how you would analyze which groups have dominance in a society.
I provided a review of DB's statement, along with examples of some possible alternate metrics to examine "institutional power" back on pg. 3 of this thread. Serious question: Are you purposely ignoring relevant content, or do you tend to struggle with content retention?
sprout said:
proeasdf said:
Why don't you explain your definition of institutional power. You seem hung up on average income as a possible proxy for power in a society. Tell us how you would analyze which groups have dominance in a society.
I provided a review of DB's statement, along with examples of some possible alternate metrics to examine "institutional power" back on pg. 3 of this thread. Serious question: Are you purposely ignoring relevant content, or do you tend to struggle with content retention?
He's just here to provide a distraction. He's not interested in engaging in a discussion that's why he keeps attempting to restart every exchange by revisiting segments of his original ill-conceived post from days ago. It was nonsense then and it's nonsense now. He's got nothing but the desire (or perhaps a duty) to provide an alternative viewpoint but unfortunately lacks the energy to actually develop and present one.
Maybe the question for the rest of us is why? Why spend so much time rushing in to engage and then once there trying so hard to actually not participate by obfuscating? Where does that energy come from? Why invest the time acting like you don't really understand a simple term like 'institutional racism'? Is the idea that by not acknowledging the validity of a thing you make it disappear? What is gained (privilege)? What is being protected here (supremacy?) and how long can this ploy possibly last?
I think the answers to those questions will help illuminate the phenomenon of so much of the population feigning surprise at RR's racism or Trump's white supremacy or the viciousness of white nationalism. How can you be shocked about assault rifle murders of marginalized people when you know about the Klan and night riders and Citizens Councils?
Why so much self-delusion? Why do we spend so much time and energy saying things like, "This is not who we are" whenever we're confronted with horrible events when history shows that that is precisely who we've always been?
From what I've learned from my 'influencers' such as Toni Morrison and Kenneth V. Hardy, much is rooted in fear. From fear of what may happen to oneself and loved ones, to fear of what one will see hidden inside oneself.
flimbro said:
How can you be shocked about assault rifle murders of marginalized people when you know about the Klan and night riders and Citizens Councils?
Apparently there are "educated" adults who do not know about those things. Or perhaps the see them as something in the distant past like the Spanish Inquisition. The level of ignorance is astounding.
The following would be terrific for a Middle-School discussion. How sad that it has to be told to adults.
flimbro said:
Only people living a life where racism is discussed safely, remotely and in the abstract, care about this definition. It's academic.
On the other hand, if you're Black or brown, living in the real world in an environment where systemic life-altering racism is part of your every day you know that your personal attitude, enacted individually in an attempt to subordinate the white people who oppress YOU- has absolutely no weight, import or impact on those white people. It's just YOUR attitude- nothing more. However, you also understand that the attitude of white citizens enacted individually is imbued with the power of institutional support in the form of white law enforcement and white politicians who work in tandem with a white judicial system and white penal institutions. White America knows this as well. That's what's happening every time you see one of those stories about some random white person calling the cops on some random Black people for seemingly innocuous reasons. They understand that their racism, while also enacted individually, comes with the power and heft of the state.
It really is as simple as knowing and understanding the terminology and being able to apply it to the world we live in- today.
For example, if you were having a conversation about LGBTQ+ rights with a collection of people that included representatives from those groups you would be lost intellectually (and possibly ridiculed) if your viewpoint depended on a googled definition of "gender" or "sex" or perhaps didn't include an accurate understanding of the word cis-gendered. If you had respect for that group and really wanted to participate and expand your horizons in the process, you'd avail yourself of the current information.
Same thing with regard to racism versus bigotry or prejudice.
sprout said:
From what I've learned from my 'influencers' such as Toni Morrison and Kenneth V. Hardy, much is rooted in fear. From fear of what may happen to oneself and loved ones, to fear of what one will see hidden inside oneself.
I've always thought it was a great deal of the latter- what one will see hidden inside oneself. Most of that perspective came from Malcolm X and Baldwin- mostly Baldwin. The idea that one's superiority is dependent on another's inferiority, but that inferiority has to be maintained with ongoing violence and force of law over the course of hundreds of years. Besides the horror of having to maintain that kind of society, I always thought that on a personal level, realizing the tenuous nature of that kind of "superiority" would make you crazy.
DaveSchmidt said:
proeasdf said:
This all started with me pointing out that DB's definition of racism could have unexpected and unintended consequences.A recap:
Drummerboy’s comment: You can't really be racist unless you're working from a position of institutional power. Do not confuse racism with bigotry.
Your reply: Using your analysis of racism, it is NOT possible for anyone to be be anti-Semitic, because those of the Jewish faith or ethnicity are the predominant group in the US (as demonstrated by having the highest average income in the US).
Your deduction was a fallacy from the start, for at least a couple of reasons. First, if you’re going to argue that Jews have institutional power, DB’s analysis means only that Jews can be racist. To get your inference — that Jews can’t be victims of anti-Semitism — you had to turn that on its head. Second, institutional power isn’t defined by any single characteristic. Flimbro gave you three: white, straight, male. If you add Christian, then maybe you can get an idea of how institutional power makes room for anti-Semitism, too.
Only if you assume that only one group can, or has, institutional power. I never made any claim of the sort.
This is really getting idiotic.
The U.S. is ruled by white men. They are the only institutional power that matters.
I feel silly even having to point this out.
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info -
2007 Honda Fit $4,400
More info
Garage Sales
-
House Contents Sale Sale Date: May 18, 2024
More info
Rest in peace, Toni Morrison
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/11/21/aftermath-sixteen-writers-on-trumps-america#anchor-morrison