|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Aug 6, 2019 13:14:02 GMT -5
1. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. 2. the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. [/i][/quote] "I’ve got black accountants at Trump Castle and Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day," seems to fit that classical definition, to my mind. Somehow, though, assuming that Jews are superior - not inferior - at counting money and getting bargains doesn't seem to disprove racism. Neither would complimenting black people on their rhythm or their fried chicken recipes. As for humor, that's tricky. We can do offensive humor, because we can understand the wink and nod. But too often people are simply and deliberately offensive, and then say, "Oh it's just a joke. Don't you have a sense of humor?" I can't imagine George Wallace steeping back from the schoolhouse door, saying, "Ha ha. Just kidding." That doesn't get him off the hook. You're a stupid fuckhead and I hope you die. Isn't that funny? Why aren't you laughing? That's where Limbaugh and his apologists seem to land. I know lots of really good racial jokes, so I change them to Ole and Lena jokes. Like you said, nobody cares if you insult Norwegians. They're the kind of immigrants we need more of. The local church was helping a refugee family get settled in town. Sven was going over to help paint their house, and Lars helped dig their garden. Lena said she went over and had sex with them and left them some money. When the others asked her about it, she said she asked Ole how to help the refugees and he said, "Fuck 'em. Give 'em a dollar."[/quote] Speaking of humor... The idea that Trump is not a racist is laughable. In 1973, federal officials found evidence that Trump had refused to rent to black tenants and lied to black applicants about whether apartments were available. The thread continues through his Birther boosting, and continues to be ongoing to "send them back." Beto O' Rourke accurately points out that the media is complicit in furthering the fiction that it is even a point to be debated, when asked if he thinks Trump is racist: "What do you think? You know the shit he's been saying. He's been calling Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals. I don't know, like, members of the press, what the fuck? Hold on a second. You know, I— it's these questions that you know the answers to." "I mean, connect the dots about what he's doing in this country. He's not tolerating racism, he's promoting racism. He's not tolerating violence, he's inciting racism and violence in this country. So, you know, I just—I don't know what kind of question that is." Sometimes things are every bit as obvious as they appear, and discussion only leads to obfuscation.
|
|
|
Post by lar on Aug 6, 2019 13:17:40 GMT -5
Now hold on a minute here! I care about what is said about Norwegians and I think Radtke's joke was racist. I always thought Ole and Lena were Swedes. I object to the co-opting of Swedish culture and humor just to make a cheap joke about Norwegians. That ain't right.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Aug 6, 2019 13:42:28 GMT -5
If you need definitions, ask Hitler. (It's page 7 you know).
Incidentally, Mexican isn't a race and neither is Hispanic. They're ethnicities.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Aug 6, 2019 13:47:19 GMT -5
Now hold on a minute here! I care about what is said about Norwegians and I think Radtke's joke was racist. I always thought Ole and Lena were Swedes. I object to the co-opting of Swedish culture and humor just to make a cheap joke about Norwegians. That ain't right. You're free to think of them as Swedes as long as majorminor isn't in the room. If he is, then watch out. He chases grizzles for fun.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Aug 6, 2019 13:58:34 GMT -5
It is not all that clear that bigotry and stereotyping and slurring based on national/ethnic group membership (hereafter "N/EGM" to save typing) is "clearly not racism," since the varieties of N/EGM share so many qualities, starting with essentializing the target groups--claiming that there are some inherent traits that make it OK to treat every individual as somehow the same. Trump's claim that a judge couldn't rule fairly on cases he was involved in because of the judge's Mexican heritage skates pretty close to this kind of essentializing: "He's of Mexican heritage and he's very proud of it"; "We are building a wall. He's a Mexican. We're building a wall between here and Mexico." Transcript at www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/politics/judge-curiel-trump-border-wall/index.htmlHere Trump is suggesting national-heritage-based bias on the part of the judge while trying to edge around actually saying it baldly and claiming to sympathize with national-origin pride. ("He's proud of his heritage. I respect him for that.") Now, this could be ordinary bigotry or an opportunist grab for any explanation for his judicial setbacks or both. But it certainly fits with, say, his famous remark about "Mexico" sending us their rapists and murderers and his regular characterization of hordes of refugee asylum-seekers as drug-dealing gangsters. I know that one of the responses to the view that Trump is/talks like a racist is "ethnicity and national origin aren't race"--which is technically true. [On edit--Bruce posted this exact response while I was drafting this.] But those attributes are generally associated with "race"*, and Trump is not the only person to use that association to stir up resentment and fear of people-not-like-us by suggesting that anyone of X "race" is necessarily (or merely likely) to be Y. So. Racism in the social-pathology sense is a species of bigotry and thus on the same level of abstraction as classism, homophobia, or sexism--all assertions that membership in Group X necessarily (or, for the timid, almost always) means Y. And maybe Trump isn't the classic racist, but mainly because he lacks the habit of systematic thinking that makes for the most virulent kind of racism. Instead, he seems to be a general-purpose bigot whose organizing principle is "why is this person not kissing my ass?" * I use scare quotes because, as I wrote above, "race" is not an immutable or essential trait but a set of physiognomic and physiological traits arising from mutable breeding populations. And the history of the term's use demonstrates its elastic properties--see "the Irish race" and similar constructions. A course I used to teach had a whole section of the taxonomy of bigotry and how it operates in language.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Aug 6, 2019 14:10:57 GMT -5
Oh, so Russell gets to define words again?
|
|
|
Post by millring on Aug 6, 2019 14:23:43 GMT -5
My nephew is American. His kids are going to be Brits. The oldest was 6 when they made the move. The youngest just born. For all practical purposes, the kids have known -- remember -- no home but England.
Solomon is the oldest. He loves American culture. He's a Cubs fan like his dad. He listens to American podcasts and television and videos, listens to American music, and identifies strongly with his dad's home country.
If Solomon were to become a judge in England and he made a ruling against someone who had endorsed policies that a preponderance of the population of England believed to be anti-American, it would not be racism should that someone complain about Solomon's perceived lack of objectivity in that decision. Especially if Solomon's American sympathies were quite publicly acknowledged (say he belonged to an American Lawyers association in England). The criticism hurled at Solomon might not be deserved, but it also would not be racist.
But few care if they get this right because they believe the object of their careless logic is Trump and not principle.
|
|
|
Post by lar on Aug 6, 2019 14:24:07 GMT -5
Now hold on a minute here! I care about what is said about Norwegians and I think Radtke's joke was racist. I always thought Ole and Lena were Swedes. I object to the co-opting of Swedish culture and humor just to make a cheap joke about Norwegians. That ain't right. You're free to think of them as Swedes as long as majorminor isn't in the room. If he is, then watch out. He chases grizzles for fun. I haven't met majorminor so I'll have to take your word for it. I've always thought of him as a nice guy, though. I guess I thought Ole and Lena were Swedish because there was a couple in our community that were Swedish and they were named Ole and Lena. It wasn't until I came to Wisconsin that I started hearing Ole and Lena jokes so I put two and two together. I don't know why there were no jokes like that around where I grew up. Nearly all of us were Swedes except for the Lutherans who went to the Danish church a couple of miles away.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Aug 6, 2019 14:47:40 GMT -5
The discussion of racism reminds me of a famous or perhaps infamous concurrence by Justice Stewart in an obscenity case. "Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments criminal laws [relating to obscenity] are constitutionally limited to hard-core pornography. I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it...."
When I was in law school, this statement was held up as an example of how judges should not construe the law.
End of digression.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Aug 6, 2019 14:54:15 GMT -5
I'm laughing.
(Do you believe that Donald Trump Himself did that, himself, back in 1973? Nineteen-seventy-three? Okay, so he himself didn't? Aha, so an employee of his did? Hmmmm. And he/she was directed to do this by the Young Donald hisself?)
To state something with such certainty and offer this as evidence doesn't help you.
|
|
|
Post by Marty on Aug 6, 2019 14:54:46 GMT -5
Now hold on a minute here! I care about what is said about Norwegians and I think Radtke's joke was racist. I always thought Ole and Lena were Swedes. I object to the co-opting of Swedish culture and humor just to make a cheap joke about Norwegians. That ain't right. They're neither, they are Scandahoovian. And don't forget about Sven.
|
|
|
Post by lar on Aug 6, 2019 14:59:33 GMT -5
Now hold on a minute here! I care about what is said about Norwegians and I think Radtke's joke was racist. I always thought Ole and Lena were Swedes. I object to the co-opting of Swedish culture and humor just to make a cheap joke about Norwegians. That ain't right. They're neither, they are Scandahoovian. And don't forget about Sven. Ahhh! Very good, Marty!
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Aug 6, 2019 15:03:57 GMT -5
I'm laughing. (Do you believe that Donald Trump Himself did that, himself, back in 1973? Nineteen-seventy-three? Okay, so he himself didn't? Aha, so an employee of his did? Hmmmm. And he/she was directed to do this by the Young Donald hisself?) To state something with such certainty and offer this as evidence doesn't help you. I gave several examples. The list is much longer. Details available all over the known, emperical universe. Here is one place to start: www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-historyIt's really not a debate, unless one thinks that 2 plus 2 equaling 4 is somehow up for discussion. To deny observable reality is gaslighting.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Aug 6, 2019 15:13:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Aug 6, 2019 15:17:52 GMT -5
I'm laughing. (Do you believe that Donald Trump Himself did that, himself, back in 1973? Nineteen-seventy-three? Okay, so he himself didn't? Aha, so an employee of his did? Hmmmm. And he/she was directed to do this by the Young Donald hisself?) To state something with such certainty and offer this as evidence doesn't help you. I gave several examples. The list is much longer. Details available all over the known, emperical universe. Here is one place to start: www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-historyIt's really not a debate, unless one thinks that 2 plus 2 equaling 4 is somehow up for discussion. To deny observable reality is gaslighting. I read the whole thing. I'm still laughing. And I'm not gaslighting. And I'm certainly not a Trump guy.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Aug 6, 2019 15:19:41 GMT -5
Russell doesn't "get" to define words. Russell is a fucking language professional. Russell knows how lexicography works. Russell knows what he's talking about when he's on his own fucking turf. (Russell also acknowledges and honors his blue-collar background and really enjoys punching up his posts with a bit of profanity.)
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Aug 6, 2019 15:38:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Aug 6, 2019 15:46:29 GMT -5
a white hood would do the trick... unless it was a Hajib. Then he could be a transitioning Muslim.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Aug 6, 2019 15:50:23 GMT -5
I read the whole thing. I'm still laughing. And I'm not gaslighting. And I'm certainly not a Trump guy. Laughing is a strange reaction. Was it his insistence that the Central Park Five were guilty even when DNA evidence proved otherwise? Was it his "send them back" directed at four women of color, three born in the US? Was it the brown criminals coming up over the border? Was it the birtherism? Was it his constant re-Tweeting of White Nationalists? (All chuckle-inducing, sure , but...) If this list is not sufficient for you to see a pattern , what would be? Tapes of him using the n-word? A white hood? Seriously. What would be sufficient? Interestingly, if you do a bit of research into sites like 8Chan and the subreddit's "The Donald," (which reddit quarantined), on-line racists seem to have zero problem seeing Trump as one of their own. They are thrilled to have him in their camp and can't seem to stop talking about it.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Aug 6, 2019 15:51:01 GMT -5
Oh, so Russell gets to define words again? It took me three times to get through adolescent psychology, but once I finally did, I had it down cold. Either you are envious of Russell or you have a crush on him. He is kind of cute, so a crush is understandable. Chocolates would be a better way to get him to notice you.
|
|