Reagan's racist comments
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.
So much racism, so few racists.
Apparently that 40% is putting in a whole lot of overtime. You have to commend them for their dedication. Where do they find the time? That 40% is maintaining racist policies in housing, education, law enforcement, immigration, the courts, the penal system etc. And the really crazy part is that they've been doing this for hundreds of years! That's a pretty impressive system of ongoing oppression for only 40%. American exceptionalism indeed.
proeasdf said:
DaveSchmidt said:Applying Maya Angelou's, often quoted statement (when people show you who they are, believe them) to Jimmy Carter's praise for Lester Maddox provides a different POV regarding Jimmy Carter (namely, Jimmy Carter was a white supremacist in 1970). In light of JC's history of racism and white supremacy, it seems hypocritical, at best, to only focus on RR regarding racism. I acknowledge that people change over time and it is unlikely that the JC of 2019 is the same as the JC of 1970.
proeasdf said:Scratch any white American adult and you’ll find racism. You need to probe a little deeper to determine what he or she has done about that fact.
In his 1970 campaign for GA governor Jimmy Carter received the endorsement of former Democratic Gov. Lester Maddox. Upon receipt of the endorsement, Jimmy Carter responded by praising Lester Maddox (the life-long segregationist): "He has brought a standard of forthright expression and personal honesty to the governor's office, and I hope to live up to his standard." Maddox had not only refused to serve blacks in the restaurant he once owned, but he had also greeted civil rights protestors with a gun, and made sticks available to his white customers with which to intimidate them.
That takes more time than resurrecting old quotes. I’m not sure you’ve had that time, given life’s interruptions, but if you’ve done the probing and still decided that FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, etc., are all comparable when it comes to race, you’re welcome to share your findings.
Conclusion: neither party is composed of saints.
PS I will agree that RR was, at a minimum, backwards on race (which I would characterize as RR being stuck in the values/mores of the 1930s). Unfortunately, some people so not change over time as much as we would like (such as RR).
Please pick one and solve (show your work):
1. 8 / 2(2+2)
2. "Backwards on race" + "stuck in the values/mores of the 1930s" =
Hint: #2 is much easier
I’ll save you some time. I think it’s a trick question, because the answer to both is: “Definitely one.”
Complications, complications. It really was a trick.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/02/science/math-equation-pedmas-bemdas-bedmas.html
(I’m going to stick with my answer, since flimbro was generous enough to use / rather than ÷ which to me signals that everything afterward is the divisor.)
DaveSchmidt said:
Complications, complications. It really was a trick.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/02/science/math-equation-pedmas-bemdas-bedmas.html
(I’m going to stick with my answer, since flimbro was generous enough to use / rather than ÷ which to me signals that everything afterward is the divisor.)
IIRC, I think parentheses take precedence then multiplication.
drummerboy said:
You can't really be racist unless you're working from a position of institutional power. Do not confuse racism with bigotry.
as for proeasdf's simplistic pronouncement of bothsiderism, while you can certainly find random expressions of racist behavior all over the place, what actually matters, in politics anyway, is whether your policies serve to increase or decrease the effects of racism.
Anyone who argues that the Dems and post-1960 Repubs are somehow equivalent in this regard needs some serious work on how they think.
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). See https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
PS Number two in the income ranking are those of the Hindu faith. And, number three is Episcopalians.
DaveSchmidt said:
proeasdf said:No. But in America, it’s the only racism that matters.
Is your POV that racism is only found in whites?
That in itself is a racist comment.
lord_pabulum said:
DaveSchmidt said:That in itself is a racist comment.
proeasdf said:No. But in America, it’s the only racism that matters.
Is your POV that racism is only found in whites?
typical pablum from the namesake
proeasdf said:
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). See https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
Now that is antisemitism.
drummerboy said:
typical pablum from the namesake
It must be frustrating for you to be wrong again.
lord_pabulum said:
DaveSchmidt said:That in itself is a racist comment.
proeasdf said:No. But in America, it’s the only racism that matters.
Is your POV that racism is only found in whites?
No, it's not. I recommend the book "White Fragility" by Robin DiAngelo. As she notes on page 20: "When a racial group's collective prejudice is backed by the power of legal authority and institutional control, it is transformed into racism, a far-reaching system that functions independently from the intentions or self-images of individual actors." She continues on page 21: "This authority and control transforms individual prejudices into a far-reaching system that no longer depends on the good intentions of individual actors; it becomes the default of the society and is reproduced automatically. Racism is a system."
lord_pabulum said:
drummerboy said:It must be frustrating for you to be wrong again.
typical pablum from the namesake
What's frustrating and somewhat frightening is reading casual exchanges between adults who in 2019 still don't seem to know what racism is.
(Best of luck with and thanks for the diAngelo reference @nohero, it's been offered here several times.)
As with most things worth knowing some scholarship is required but in the interim here's a simple set of definitions from the dismantlingracism.org site:
Racism = race prejudice + social and institutional power
Racism = a system of advantage based on race
Racism = a system of oppression based on race
Racism = a white supremacy system
What's not included here is 'being mean' to somebody because they don't look like you. Hopefully this will dispel the common idea that racism is practiced and perpetuated by rude people and that 'niceness' is an antidote for systemic inequities. More on this from Robin diAngelo in a short piece printed in the Guardian
a link: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/16/racial-inequality-niceness-white-people
If diAngelo's work peaks your interest, invest some time in reading "How To Be an Antiracist" by Ibram X. Kendi. It's best experienced after you finish his "Stamped From The Beginning" which is an incredible breakdown of the origins of race based American apartheid.
nohero said:
No, it's not. I recommend the book "White Fragility" by Robin DiAngelo. As she notes on page 20: "When a racial group's collective prejudice is backed by the power of legal authority and institutional control, it is transformed into racism, a far-reaching system that functions independently from the intentions or self-images of individual actors." She continues on page 21: "This authority and control transforms individual prejudices into a far-reaching system that no longer depends on the good intentions of individual actors; it becomes the default of the society and is reproduced automatically. Racism is a system."
If someone forms an opinion based on race, that is racism. Apparently you think that racism is measured on some sort of scale. To me racism is racism.
flimbro said:
lord_pabulum said:What's frustrating and somewhat frightening is reading casual exchanges between adults who in 2019 still don't seem to know what racism is.
drummerboy said:It must be frustrating for you to be wrong again.
typical pablum from the namesake
(Best of luck with and thanks for the diAngelo reference @nohero, it's been offered here several times.)
As with most things worth knowing some scholarship is required but in the interim here's a simple set of definitions from the dismantlingracism.org site:
Racism = race prejudice + social and institutional power
Racism = a system of advantage based on race
Racism = a system of oppression based on race
Racism = a white supremacy system
What's not included here is 'being mean' to somebody because they don't look like you. Hopefully this will dispel the common idea that racism is practiced and perpetuated by rude people and that 'niceness' is an antidote for systemic inequities. More on this from Robin diAngelo in a short piece printed in the Guardian
a link: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/16/racial-inequality-niceness-white-people
If diAngelo's work peaks your interest, invest some time in reading "How To Be an Antiracist" by Ibram X. Kendi. It's best experienced after you finish his "Stamped From The Beginning" which is an incredible breakdown of the origins of race based American apartheid.
So help me understand whether the following are problematic:
1. 44% of Jewish people (both ethnic and religious) having average income of 100k or more (while only 29.2%* of average Americans have household income in excess of 100k). See https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/292-us-households-made-more-100000-2017. Also see: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
2. 36% of Hindu people having average income of 100k or more (percentage attributable to the Pew study);
3. 35% of Episcopalians having average income of 100k or more (percentage attributable to the Pew study); and
4. 4% of Jehovah Witnesses have average income of 100k or more (percentage attributable to the Pew study); and
Clearly, income inequality correlates with certain religions and/or ethnicities. Which of the above percentages (which demonstrate income inequality to me) are problematic?
*- 29.2% for average US household above 100k percentage is from the cnsnews link. While the Pew study lists 19.1% for all US Adults (which appears to measure individual income rather than household income and why this percentage was not used).
lord_pabulum said:
nohero said:...To me racism is racism.
No, it's not. I recommend the book "White Fragility" by Robin DiAngelo. As she notes on page 20: "When a racial group's collective prejudice is backed by the power of legal authority and institutional control, it is transformed into racism, a far-reaching system that functions independently from the intentions or self-images of individual actors." She continues on page 21: "This authority and control transforms individual prejudices into a far-reaching system that no longer depends on the good intentions of individual actors; it becomes the default of the society and is reproduced automatically. Racism is a system."
what a brilliant analysis.
@proeasdf I don't know if your question is directed to me, but if it is I have to apologize. I have no idea what you're asking or what your facts and figures represent or what this has to do with this thread.
Break it down partner.
lord_pabulum said:
nohero said:If someone forms an opinion based on race, that is racism. Apparently you think that racism is measured on some sort of scale. To me racism is racism.
No, it's not. I recommend the book "White Fragility" by Robin DiAngelo. As she notes on page 20: "When a racial group's collective prejudice is backed by the power of legal authority and institutional control, it is transformed into racism, a far-reaching system that functions independently from the intentions or self-images of individual actors." She continues on page 21: "This authority and control transforms individual prejudices into a far-reaching system that no longer depends on the good intentions of individual actors; it becomes the default of the society and is reproduced automatically. Racism is a system."
"If someone forms an opinion based on race, that is racism."
(I suspect that you may be offering this as an escape line- but just in case you aren't)
No, it isn't. Did you read what you quoted? Racism is a system of oppression requiring the ongoing diminution of one group/race of people to create and maintain ongoing advantages for another group/race. This can only be accomplished if the latter has the size, economic wherewithal and structural tools to mold and control society. The resulting advantages are often referred to as "white privilege" and the belief in the myth that white people are in fact superior simply because they are 'white' is "white supremacy".
For example, I can say horrible things about Asians for the entirety of my life, but, individually or joined by a group I have zero ability to enact any laws, establish nationwide cultural norms or social programs that restrict their social mobility, demean their humanity, remove their rights or prevent them from living a full life- in attempt to enrich my own. So, even grouped with thousands of other Black people I cannot elevate my station by restricting the lives of all Asians based on my feelings about them as a 'race'. I cannot oppress them. At the end of the day all my yelling will only amount to me being a loud-mouthed bigot.
I know the distinction may seem annoying, but if you're going to engage in a discussion about racism it always helps if you know some of the terminology.
flimbro said:
"If someone forms an opinion based on race, that is racism."
(I suspect that you may be offering this as an escape line- but just in case you aren't)
No, it isn't. Did you read what you quoted? Racism is a system of oppression requiring the ongoing diminution of one group/race of people to create and maintain ongoing advantages for another group/race. This can only be accomplished if the latter has the size, economic wherewithal and structural tools to mold and control society. The resulting advantages are often referred to as "white privilege" and the belief in the myth that white people are in fact superior simply because they are 'white' is "white supremacy".
For example, I can say horrible things about Asians for the entirety of my life, but, individually or joined by a group I have zero ability to enact any laws, establish nationwide cultural norms or social programs that restrict their social mobility, demean their humanity, remove their rights or prevent them from living a full life- in attempt to enrich my own. So, even grouped with thousands of other Black people I cannot elevate my station by restricting the lives of all Asians based on my feelings about them as a 'race'. I cannot oppress them. At the end of the day all my yelling will only amount to me being a loud-mouthed bigot.
I know the distinction may seem annoying, but if you're going to engage in a discussion about racism it always helps if you know some of the terminology.
The distinction is not annoying. But I may not be understanding your point. So as long as one doesn't have the ability to pass laws racism is ok? Or is it that if one is oppressed it's ok to be a bigot?
If someone forms an opinion about another person based on race that is racism.
lord_pabulum said:
If someone forms an opinion based on race, that is racism.
I form opinions based on race all the time.* Some of them are my own fault, but America also wired a lot of them into me.
* Don’t you?
proeasdf said:
So help me understand whether the following are problematic:
This is problematic:
“Clearly, income inequality correlates with certain religions and/or ethnicities.”
I don’t think I’m up to the task of helping you understand, however. First, I’d need figures comparing the incomes of white American Jews and black American Jews, white American Episcopalians and black American Episcopalians, etc., which are unavailable. Then we’d have to discuss what correlation really means. After that, I’d have to explain why income inequality is not the be-all, end-all measure of American racism.
For starters.
I think you’re better off with flimbro’s reading recommendations. Feel free to slide them ahead of the PEN America report on campus free speech.
lord_pabulum said:
lord_pabulum said:The distinction is not annoying. But I may not be understanding your point. So as long as one doesn't have the ability to pass laws racism is ok? Or is it that if one is oppressed it's ok to be a bigot?
flimbro said:
"If someone forms an opinion based on race, that is racism."
(I suspect that you may be offering this as an escape line- but just in case you aren't)
No, it isn't. Did you read what you quoted? Racism is a system of oppression requiring the ongoing diminution of one group/race of people to create and maintain ongoing advantages for another group/race. This can only be accomplished if the latter has the size, economic wherewithal and structural tools to mold and control society. The resulting advantages are often referred to as "white privilege" and the belief in the myth that white people are in fact superior simply because they are 'white' is "white supremacy".
For example, I can say horrible things about Asians for the entirety of my life, but, individually or joined by a group I have zero ability to enact any laws, establish nationwide cultural norms or social programs that restrict their social mobility, demean their humanity, remove their rights or prevent them from living a full life- in attempt to enrich my own. So, even grouped with thousands of other Black people I cannot elevate my station by restricting the lives of all Asians based on my feelings about them as a 'race'. I cannot oppress them. At the end of the day all my yelling will only amount to me being a loud-mouthed bigot.
I know the distinction may seem annoying, but if you're going to engage in a discussion about racism it always helps if you know some of the terminology.
If someone forms an opinion about another person based on race that is racism.
Are all of your views on human behavior one level deep?
I'm wondering how all this, not surprising, but "new" info will affect those who love and admire Reagan, quoting him often--like Nancy Pelosi:
(video 1:02 min)
proeasdf said:
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). See https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
I'm not sure how the Jewish 1.5% (no, that's not even a 15, it's a 1-and-a-half percent) of the US population could possibly be considered a "predominant" group. (And only 0.2% of the world).
After about 1/3 of the world's Jews were murdered, some bizarro person comes up with a way to say, hey look-- you're the predominant group! (Possibly because poorer Jews didn't make it out).
You may find this an interesting poll:
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2018/11/europe/antisemitism-poll-2018-intl/
sprout said:
proeasdf said:I'm not sure how the Jewish 1.5% (no, that's not even a 15, it's a 1-and-a-half percent) of the US population could possibly be considered a "predominant" group. (And only 0.2% of the world).
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). See https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
After about 1/3 of the world's Jews were murdered, some bizarro person comes up with a way to say, hey look-- you're the predominant group! (Possibly because poorer Jews didn't make it out).
You may find this an interesting poll:
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2018/11/europe/antisemitism-poll-2018-intl/
In my posting I merely applied DB's definition of racism to the problem of anti-semitism. I do NOT support DB's analysis. Instead, I applied DB's principles and its ridiculous result whereby anti-semitism is an impossibility under DB's principles. DB's analysis adopts a view that group identity (and the dominance of that group in the culture) is paramount in determining whether a member of a particular group can have racism inflicted upon them. In light of being those of the Jewish faith, or ethnicity, being the number one income group in the nation, it is not hard to see them as a predominant group. Once again I do NOT support the principles of DB's analysis. I believe that racism, including anti-semitism, can occur to anyone regardless of their group-identity and its predominance, or lack of dominance, in the culture.
Conclusion: defining racism in a manner where determining whether an act of racism has occurred is dependent on a person's group identity (and that group's predominance) is problematic. Such a definition enshrines a definition of racism that does NOT help to restrain racism.
PS I believe that about 20% of Nobel laureates have been granted to those of Jewish faith or ethnicity (another demonstration of predominance). In fact, the city of Rishon LeZion, Israel celebrates this fact by naming one of its streets as "The Nobel Prize Laureates Blvd." See https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/PikiWiki_Israel_9696_jewish_laureates_promenade_in_rishon_lezion.jpg
proeasdf said:
In light of being those of the Jewish faith, or ethnicity, being the number one income group in the nation, it is not hard to see them as a predominant group.
This is the "The Jews have the money, they're in control" argument.
There have been some good suggestions in the thread for sources to learn more on the topic of racism, which I'll quote here:
nohero said:
No, it's not. I recommend the book "White Fragility" by Robin DiAngelo. As she notes on page 20: "When a racial group's collective prejudice is backed by the power of legal authority and institutional control, it is transformed into racism, a far-reaching system that functions independently from the intentions or self-images of individual actors." She continues on page 21: "This authority and control transforms individual prejudices into a far-reaching system that no longer depends on the good intentions of individual actors; it becomes the default of the society and is reproduced automatically. Racism is a system."
flimbro said:
What's frustrating and somewhat frightening is reading casual exchanges between adults who in 2019 still don't seem to know what racism is.
(Best of luck with and thanks for the diAngelo reference @nohero, it's been offered here several times.)
As with most things worth knowing some scholarship is required but in the interim here's a simple set of definitions from the dismantlingracism.org site:
Racism = race prejudice + social and institutional power
Racism = a system of advantage based on race
Racism = a system of oppression based on race
Racism = a white supremacy system
What's not included here is 'being mean' to somebody because they don't look like you. Hopefully this will dispel the common idea that racism is practiced and perpetuated by rude people and that 'niceness' is an antidote for systemic inequities. More on this from Robin diAngelo in a short piece printed in the Guardian
a link: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/16/racial-inequality-niceness-white-people
If diAngelo's work peaks your interest, invest some time in reading "How To Be an Antiracist" by Ibram X. Kendi. It's best experienced after you finish his "Stamped From The Beginning" which is an incredible breakdown of the origins of race based American apartheid.
Rentals
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
You can't really be racist unless you're working from a position of institutional power. Do not confuse racism with bigotry.
as for proeasdf's simplistic pronouncement of bothsiderism, while you can certainly find random expressions of racist behavior all over the place, what actually matters, in politics anyway, is whether your policies serve to increase or decrease the effects of racism.
Anyone who argues that the Dems and post-1960 Repubs are somehow equivalent in this regard needs some serious work on how they think.