Proper and improper uses of the term "racism"

I have not been in the Obama thread much, but here is my "take" on racism:

Racism ascribes a trait, predisposition, predilection, whether positive or negative, to members of an entire group of people, without considering the qualities of each discrete individual.

Some people treat people of certain groups differentially, based solely on their membership in that group.

0 Replies

So, Phoenix. You equate racism to prejudice? My thought is that racism is defined by actions, or by advocating/inciting actions. Your defination does align with the word's usage on a2k, but I think there's a distinction.

0 Replies

Response to George's last post on the discussion in the obama thread.

georgeob1 wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

The simple truth remains: While there is reasonable justification for blacks to prefer voting for blacks simply because they are black; there is no reasonable justification for whites to show the same kind of preference for whites. There is a night and day's difference between a desire to level the playing field and a desire to perpetuate inequality.

This is the essence of our disagreement.

In the first place the generalizations about "blacks" and "whites" are themselves very misleading, and the source of a good deal of mischief. The individual variations among each group are almost certainly far larger than any supposed average difference between them. Many individual blacks and whites in this game are likely motivated by real racism - as you might define it: many others in both groups likely are motivated by factors entirely unrelated to racism. We can't really know the real motivations of any individual - of either group.

With this in mind, the assignment of some supposed "reasonable justification" - available to all blacks - for them to prefer a black candidate - whatever may be their real motivations - is itself a racist construct. It opens the logical door to all kinds of other abuses, including some old, shopworn excuses and rationalizations for Jim Crow segregation. In addition, the corresponding denial to whites - also without regard to their real motivations - of a "reasonable justification" is an affront to reason and justice, one that will merely reinforce the familiar, vicious cycle.

The remedy for a pattern of inequality and unfair treatment is equality, not reciprocal inequality or revenge. Surely the experience of leadership and management of people you cite, has amply demonstrated this fundamental and universal principle to you. I have certainly seen it at work numerous times and know beyond doubt that revenge and retaliation, however finely they are clothed with euphamisms, merely reinforce the cycle and, at best, merely alter the roles of some of the players in it.

My original posts were meant to highlight the hypocrisy and destructive character of the strange coupling of rationalizations for the statistical behavior of black voters, and condemnation of that of white voters in the early primaries - nothing more. There were no "deliberate distractions" in any of it.

I think you know you were being a bit selective in your recollections of the history and character of John Brown. While he may well have helped to "ignite the fires" of the Civil War, he also did as much to extinguish a then growing movement in Virginia and the border states to voluntarily end slavery. Certainly the legacy of his ideas and actions did more to reinforce continued cultural and racial friction in the country than to reduce it. The contrast with MLK on precisely this point could not be more stark. That is the point of clarity to which I referred.

Yes George, the differences between King and Brown couldn't be more obvious, and most every generalization by definition is indeed a generalization. No arguments there. The point Blatham was making when he asked you if MLK was practicing racism is in no way answered by these side issues. By some definitions; MLK certainly practiced racism (I think we're in agreement that this definition is utterly without malice.) A percentage of southern blacks have no doubt exercised this exact same brand of MLK-benevolent-racism, while others have exercised the nasty variety or some mixture of the two while demonstrating a color preference in the voting booth. While some whites exercised the same malevolent brand as some blacks; where do you see room for any whites to have practiced the MLK-benevolent variety? This is the difference you are ignoring, George.

Whether you think the time for affirmative action has passed or not; surely you wouldn't contend that the days of 100% equality are upon us? And if not; there remains room for blacks to prefer the advancement of blacks out of a desire to ascend towards this noble goal. Whites' preference for the advancement of whites can have no such noble equivalent purpose I can think of. Quite the contrary, I'd say.

0 Replies

Instead of reformulating in my own words what others already said in the Obama thread, I'll just repost these two things O'Bill said there that I will heartily subscribe to.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

The simple truth remains: While there is reasonable justification for blacks to prefer voting for blacks simply because they are black; there is no reasonable justification for whites to show the same kind of preference for whites. There is a night and day's difference between a desire to level the playing field and a desire to perpetuate inequality.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

[Georgeob1], you seem to be feigning an inability to see the difference between Black and White. Why pretend that a white guy's preference for whites doesn't meet more definitions of "racism" than a black guy's preference for blacks? Or that this simple matter of fact isn't compelling enough to obliterate the silly suggestions that there is no difference between these two phenomena? Where a black guy can reasonably defend a preference for blacks out of an honest sense of fairness; a white guy's preference for whites (at least in this country) could do no such thing. And you damn well know it.

0 Replies

george has been accused here, in discussions on the Israel/Palestine problem, of being guilty of a type of anti-semitism.

Would this be a proper or improper use of "anti-semitism"?

If a country club refused membership rights to jews, would that be "anti-semitism"?

If a jewish-owned business showed discrimination in hiring that favored other jewish people, would this be reverse anti-semitism?

How do each of these cases match what we normally understand as "anti-semitism"?

Is towing a black person behind a truck an example of 'racism'?

Was the hope among blacks or whites that Thomas, as an african american, might gain a seat on the SC an example of 'racism'?

0 Replies

Racism is judge others based solely on their ethnic differences. Whether the racial bigot is inclined to behave badly toward others, or to blindly support members of their own group, is immaterial. Those are two sides of the same bigoted coin. Racism is a subset of chauvinism. "We" are good and superior, and "they" are inferior and bad. In each case of the various subsets of chauvinism and bigotry a very generalized prejudice for one group over another is made. In all of these cases that I can think of, judgments about others and behavior is irrational and disrespectful of the individual being judged.

MLK, I believe rejected narrow prejudice and insisted that each individual be judged not on the color of their skin, or the church they belong to, or the part of the world their ancestors inhabited, or their age, or sex, but rather upon their unique character, intelligence, initiative, virtues, etc.

A vote for Obama based exclusively on the color of his skin, is just as racist as a vote cast against him for the same reason. A vote cast for Hillary Clinton because she is a woman, is just as bigoted as a vote against her for the same reason. A vote for John McCain because he is a senior citizen, is just as chauvinistic as the vote cast against him because he isn't twenty or thirty years younger.

There are bigoted Republicans as some here have pointed out ad nauseum for years, but not all Republicans are: (take your pick.. Imperialistic, Capitalist, Warmongers, Racists, Selfish, Insane, Stupid, Conspirators, Heartless, Cold, Homophobic, Corrupt, Evangelical Christians, Congenital Liars, or White Collar Criminals. Some are. Not all Left-leaning Democrats are only awaiting canonization to become full-fledged saints on the Marxist calendar. There are just as many Democrats with feet of clay, as there are Republicans... and in both cases those rogues tend to exist way out their in the radical wings.

Many who wouldn't vote for Obama as dog catcher, might very well vote for Collin Powell, or Ms. Rice, some other person of "color". To label those who detest the idea that Hillary Clinton, or Barak Obama as President of the United States as racists or gender chauvenists is unfair, and unwarranted. This is a tempest in a teacup blown up by the foot soldiers of the Democratic candidates, and it does great disservice to their Party.

0 Replies

Since virtually all of the peoples living in Southwest Asia are Semitic, support or criticism of the State of Irsrael can't properly be termed either pro or anti Semitic. The conflict isn't waged over "racial", or "ethnic" issues, but for political and religious differences between Israelis and their Islamic neighbors.

To ban all people with Jewish ethnic backgrounds from country clubs, resorts, hotels, etc. is anti-semitic/racist/bigoted. To hire a lawyer, or doctor, or CPA, primarily because they have a Jewish sounding name, or are known to come from a Jewish ethnic background is also racist and bigoted. People deserve to be judged and valued for their own strengths and weakness, not on stereotypical generalities.

Criminal conduct is criminal conduct regardless of the criminal's motivation. Crimes defined in terms of sterotypes and generalizations about individuals independent of accused behavior, is one way of defining the Jim Crow Laws that we did away with in this country over fifty years ago. It is shameful that it took that long before the Law was equally applied to all.

"Was the hope among blacks or whites that Thomas, as an african american, might gain a seat on the SC an example of 'racism'?"

As stated, yes, that was an example of racism. Clarence Thomas either was qualified by his character, knowledge and understanding of the Constitution and Federal Law to sit on the High Court, or he wasn't. The color of his skin was, or should have been, irrelevant. To make his skin color and ethnicity an issue was racist, and properly should be condemned by every American. Unfortunately, chauvinism and bigotry remain alive and toxic in the hearts of many Americans regardless of their skin color, ethnicity, gender, etc. Men and Women are not perfect, but we should at least try to overcome stereotypical thinking and prejudice.

0 Replies

Asherman (always good to get your take), did you see this post of Nimh's?

nimh wrote:

nimh wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
If it was racism that motivated white male voters in the South recently to vote for Hillary (as was alleged here and on other threads, almost without comment or objection)

I am only on page 995 now -- and this thread has meanwhile passed the 1000 mark! -- but I see George has already assailed this straw man at least three times.

I know that I have, for one, repeatedly discussed the role of race in the election outcomes by demographic group, analysed it to death in fact. But if all George took from it was that it was purely and only "racism that motivated white male voters in the South recently to vote for Hillary" and that this assertion was made "almost without comment or objection", he must have had either skipped or conveniently forgotten about half the posts that were written about the topic, in this thread, the Polls etc thread, and the Old Times There Are Not Forgotten thread.

As in: something can play an undeniable role, without it being the only explanation and without it being right to pass on without reservations.

Georgeob1 has asserted, the way I read it (correct me if I'm wrong) that there are many other reasons why Southern whites may have voted for Hillary and/or Edwards, and so there's little sense in talking about race as determinator. So it suits his argument to pretend that the people he argued with asserted that it must just all have been racism - that's a silly proposition, can easily be brushed off, and then we can all continue like there's nothing to see here.

The real argument here of course was more complicated. Quite specific regional deviations from statistical trends have shown that whites in the South demonstrated a relatively pronounced unwillingness to vote for Obama. Ergo: just like in any other state, there are many who voted for Hillary and Edwards for all the substantive and superficial reasons that have motivated people elsewhere to do so; but there is a deviation from the trend that becomes specifically more pronounced the further a state is in the South, Deep South. An attendant trend is that John Edwards, who programatically profiled himself consistently as the progressive, populist, leftist candidate, enpoyed a pronounced and consistent support among a larger-than-average minority of white voters who described themselves as conservative or very conservative, and who listed such things as immigration and terrorism as a prime issues -- in short, who had little affinity at all with anything that Edwards the candidate actually said.

Based on such data, the observation has been made that among specific demographic subgroups, there has been a greater than average/usual unwillingness to vote Obama, and a surprising tendency to veer towards the white, male candidate even when the man was a strident liberal, and that these deviations from the overall trend probably point to racial motivations. Of course, we are talking about a relatively small subset even of Southern white voters, explaining only the deviation from the overall statistical trend, rather than somehow the whole bulk of voting in that state. But George (whom I like too, just like Snood and Blatham and, well, pretty much everyone does) apparently has the urge, when this discussion comes up, to dismiss and deride any observation of possible racial motivations playing any role as PC bullshit thats just out to declare every white vote for any white candidate racism. Like I said, that's a drastic simplification of the arguments offered, but it probably allows one to ward off threats to one's ideological dogmas.

If that's too long; at least read this excerpt:

Nimh wrote:

An attendant trend is that John Edwards, who programatically profiled himself consistently as the progressive, populist, leftist candidate, enpoyed a pronounced and consistent support among a larger-than-average minority of white voters who described themselves as conservative or very conservative, and who listed such things as immigration and terrorism as a prime issues -- in short, who had little affinity at all with anything that Edwards the candidate actually said.

Anyone care to offer an alternate explanation? Or could we just accept that the all or nothing denunciations are getting as tired as they are false.

0 Replies

I thought the definition of racism is simple: to believe that a person is inherentlydifferent, because of belonging to a specific group is racist. The key word is inherent. Meaning, if an infant would be raised by parents of a different group, that infant would turn out with certain traits, reflecting its biological group.

I know there is a definition of racism that incorporates the belief that only the group in power can be racist against a less powerful group; I don't subscribe to that view.

I believe sociology makes people believe that there is some truth to racist beliefs, since people are socialized by a culture, and that can have an affect on those in a specific cultural group. This raises the politcally incorrect argument over whether certain cultures can be superior to other cultures.

Then there is the maxim of Sociology 101: People act the way they believe other people expect them to behave (rather than appear invisible, so to speak). So, we in effect, may very well pander to some people's supposed belief systems, and act the way we think they expect us to act.

I think the way to combat racism is to learn at an early age: don't judge a book by its cover.

0 Replies

(There are many forms of racism.)

SOME ARROGANCE AND PREJUDICE; SOME COWARDICE THROWN IN:
A TRUE STORY

By : Phil Cerasoli

So I've just turned seventeen and I think I own the world
That's moving through the year of '52.
And I revel in the aura of my 'High School Hero' role
And I get the sense that all the girls do, too.

And everybody likes me and wants to be my friend
And all my teachers tell me that I'm bright.
And all the high school's coaches talk about the way I play
And how I won the game the other night.

And the San Diego papers print my picture now and then
And they write of how the team depends on me.
And I know that when I see the crowd all sitting in the stands
That I'm the guy they mostly came to see.

And I've got this kind of attitude and my hair's a bit too long
And I add to the mystique by staying cool.
And I always walk alone and I keep my distance from
The teeny-bopping mainstream of the school.

So that's pretty much the way it went in 1952
And the next two years were pretty much the same.
But then I joined the Air Force and I sadly said goodbye
To my 'High School Hero' role and all that fame.

Now the Air Force had a boot camp that would put de Sade to shame
And the higher-ups all loved to bring you down.
They shaved our heads and screamed at us and herded us like sheep
And woe to you if you had skin of brown.

'Cause our "instructor" was a bigot with a neck that was so red
That the hatred in his soul was clearly seen
Every time a black kid made an ill-timed move or two;
His eyes would turn a different shade of mean.

He'd taunt them and he'd torment them a hundred different ways
But all within the legal scope of things.
While all us white-skinned rookies kept our eyes the other way
'Cause we knew we had to earn our Airman's Wings.

And the black he hated most of all; the one who kept him spurred,
Inventing new abuses to exploit
Was a soft-voiced, handsome-featured kid whose name was Parker Brown
Who'd come here from the city of Detroit.

Now I'd not had much exposure to the dark-complexioned race
'Cause my neighborhoods and schools were white as snow.
And my dad, in Old World ignorance, would warn me now and then
That "niggers" were the lowest form of low.

But I got to liking Parker and we soon became fast friends
And he told me of his life of paying dues.
And I taught him how to play guitar and right before 'Lights Out'
Each night the two of us would play the blues.

So we had a strong alliance; a bond that only grew
As our boot camp time kept drawing to a close.
And that's when something happened that destroyed my "Hero" myth
And woke the dark side in me from repose:

The hour was late, past midnight, and our barracks slept as one
When all of us were wakened by a yell.
The lights came on and down the aisle came lumbering the form
Of our bigoted instructor straight from Hell.

We could smell the whiskey on him as he rumbled past our cots
And we knew that he had been out on the town.
As he called us to attention, he stopped his staggered walk
And stood in front of Airman Parker Brown.

The years have dimmed my mem'ry and I can't recall the words
The instructor spit at Parker on that night.
But I still recall his anger and the look on Parker's face
As his eyes were opened wide in desperate fright.

With no warning came the movement that left us shocked and stunned;
With no warning our instructor raised his hand.
With no warning he struck Parker with such a hateful zeal
That Parker found he could no longer stand.

He slumped down on his cot and sobbed; a scene so out of place
That it woke the bigot's brain from drunken sleep.
And he knew that he was history if the Chaplain would be told
Of how he struck an Airman in his keep.

But he also knew if Parker were to make the charges stick
That he'd surely need a witness; maybe two.
With the arrogance of Satan, he turned to face us all
And from his mouth the words began to spew:

"So you think that you've got friends here," he yelled at Parker Brown.
"Let me really show you where they stand!
Did any Airman here see me strike this Airman down?
If so, step out and let me see your hand."

The barracks filled with silence save for Parker's quiet sobs
The instructor's eyes were darting angrily.
And amid the stony silence, I found to my dismay
That the one who was most silent looked like me.

And I knew that I should stand out; that I should raise my hand
'Cause, for God's sake, Parker Brown was my best friend!
But the fear I felt while looking in the bigot's devil-eyes
Was enough to seal my silence in the end.

Was it fear of his authority? Was it fear of something else?
Was it just a young man's fear of the unknown?
In retrospect, it really doesn't matter all that much.
What's important is that Parker stood alone.

Well, nothing ever came from the scenes played out that night.
And boot camp finally ended; we were free.
And everybody said goodbye and went their separate ways
And Parker even said goodbye to me.

And I guess that he forgave me like he did his other friends
For keeping quiet in his hour of need.
But that was no consolation, for I knew my silent act
Would stay inside my soul just like a weed.

Now a lot of years have come and gone since Parker said goodbye
And courage comes whenever I need call
And I've done some things, I must admit, that only brave men do
And fear's a word I do not use at all.

But all these deeds are dusty thoughts shelved deep inside my brain.
Forgotten, for the most part, in a day.
But I can't escape the mem'ry of the friend who I once had
Who needed me and I just turned away.

Copyright 2001 - Phil Cerasoli

0 Replies

I think what's racist is to assume that black people would vote for a candidate solely because he or she was also black- and fail to hold them responsible or see them as capable of seeing past a persons' skin color to choose a candidate for election based on criteria that other enlightened and informed voters are expected to employ-regardless of their race.

I agree with Asherman - racism is making a determination about someone or something based soley on race - and it's just as racist (though one might find it more understandable or be somewhat sympathetic to it) when a black person does it as when a white person does it.

0 Replies

Racism is to believe that the recent genetic sub group from which a person comes is the most or one of the most significant distinguishing marks of that individual. For instance, if one genes come primarily from Slavic stock then that person (a racist knows even before they know anything else about this person) is a primarily a Slav, rather than primarily a liberal or a christian or a humanitarian or what not. If one is not a racist they would be willing to consider some of the other characteristics the primary identifying mark of that person. It does not matter if a person is predisposed to look favorably or unfavorable on a particular genetic background, if the genetics are the primary marker in the mind of the speaker then that person is racist. Don Imus made a racist comment (and sexist), and those who attacked him for it were for the most part more racist than he is.

MLK was not a racist because he thought that a lot of things are more important about a person then the color of their skin is.

0 Replies

What is 'racism' ?

I guess that depends on what a 'race' is.

I have seen anti-semitism described as 'racism'. But are Jews a separate 'race' ? I thought Judaism was a religion.

I have seen efforts to control America's southern border (to stem illegal immigration) described as 'racism'. But are Mexicans (primarily the focus of this type of discussion) a separate 'race' ?

I have heard discussions of stopping radical Islam , and the response is sometimes 'you're just racist'.

Just what is 'racism' ?

0 Replies

I think if it's ever practiced against you in its more raw form, you don't have to ask.

0 Replies

aidan said

Quote:

I agree with Asherman - racism is making a determination about someone or something based soley on race

What if the discrimination is based on a set of factors, one being race?

What if the purpose of the discrimination is to include rather than to exclude? What if, for example, a country club where blacks and jews were previously excluded from membership, sets out purposefully to recruit more blacks and more jews? Clearly their previous policy was racist and anti-semitic. Does it make any sense at all to use those same (highly and justifiably derogatory) terms to describe their present policy?

0 Replies

For those interested in digging into some of the history on the right's attempts to roll back civil rights legislation and, particularly pertinent here, to redefine the notion of 'racism' into something ahistorical and really quite meaningless precisely in the manner that we've seen georgeob, asherman and fishin do here and in the Obama thread, there are a few key players to read up on. Wikipedia has some good information and links which will extend your sources of research. And I particularly recommend Nina J. Easton's book The Gang of Five for its chapter on one key player who you've likely never heard of but who has been a foundational character in this story, Clint Bollick. But there is much elsewhere online re Bollick.

So, he's the first key actor. Along with Chip Mellor, Bollick founded the Institute for Justice, our second key actor. Small piece on it at wikipedia . Note the funding source that facilitated its startup... the Koch family.

The third actor we'll note here is The Federalist Society and there's lots and lots available on the very important 'think tank'. See here for starters. Note again the key funding sources for this group...Koch, Bradley, Olin, Scaife, Coors etc.

And those very rich, very right wing families constitute another key player in this story (and other related stories).

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

aidan said
Quote:
I agree with Asherman - racism is making a determination about someone or something based soley on race

What if the discrimination is based on a set of factors, one being race?

What if the purpose of the discrimination is to include rather than to exclude? What if, for example, a country club where blacks and jews were previously excluded from membership, sets out purposefully to recruit more blacks and more jews? Clearly their previous policy was racist and anti-semitic. Does it make any sense at all to use those same (highly and justifiably derogatory) terms to describe their present policy?

Discrimination and racism are two different things, though discrimination can be based upon racism. Affirmative action is racism, though some consider it necessary to counteract a history of discrimination based upon racism, kinda fighting fire with fire. The country club policy you describe would be a highly racist one, and should be considered such. Those who are not racist should endeavor to rid the country club of this policy as soon as possible, which probably should be as soon as some agreed level of black and jew participation had been obtained.

0 Replies

First of all, can't a club, be it a country club or other type of club, have membership policies, based on the fact it is a private club?

If it is a "public club" like a public swimming pool, then I understand everyone must be allowed to join. Why must a private club be allowed to allow everyone to join? Otherwise, it is not a private club.

Now there are country clubs that are "Jewish" (owned and operated by Jews; perhaps affiliated with a Temple?) And, they may have originated from the time that the "other" country clubs wouldn't accept Jews. But, what if today there are Jews that may not want to golf at a country club where many of the women have cutsey names like Midge or Buffy and men talk about their hunting exploits. In other words, many Jews like to socialize mainly with other Jews, and when they have a non-Jewish friend it tends to be another ethnic, many times Italian-American. Is this racism? I hope not, since otherwise our right to pursue happiness in the United States may be gone.

Naturally, the image of being exclusive might be prevented, since every private club can have a few "tokens." So a white/Gentile country club can have a few token Blacks and Jews. A Jewish country club can have a few Gentiles, both Black and White (Democratic Jews might just prefer golfing with the Black members; there's no enhancing one's liberal image by golfing with a plain vanilla Gentile).

My point is, what is supposed to be racist, from past history, might today just be exercising one's preferences based on maintaining one's social image. (Jews, I believe, are outside the WASP game of social class, even though some may think that's not true. Perhaps one day, but I think the WASP game of social class has been entrenched too long to allow for any change in membership rules; just my opinion.)

By the way, I believe there's an entire social ladder that exists in Catholic Spanish Latin America that most Americans are not aware of. I think it harkens back to Spain circa the 1500's. I think these thread's questions wouldn't be asked in Latin America, since the societies there do not, I believe, promulgate the myth, like the United States, that "we're all equal." In Latin America people know who is on the top of the heap, the "family" owning land and other wealth.

The United States has this great need to promulgate the myth that everyone is equal? At least in the current times. If anyone remembers watching Bonanza on TV, were the Cartwrights just like journeymen cowboys? Uhh, no!

0 Replies

hawkeye10 wrote:

blatham wrote:
aidan said
Quote:
I agree with Asherman - racism is making a determination about someone or something based soley on race

What if the discrimination is based on a set of factors, one being race?

What if the purpose of the discrimination is to include rather than to exclude? What if, for example, a country club where blacks and jews were previously excluded from membership, sets out purposefully to recruit more blacks and more jews? Clearly their previous policy was racist and anti-semitic. Does it make any sense at all to use those same (highly and justifiably derogatory) terms to describe their present policy?

Discrimination and racism are two different things, though discrimination can be based upon racism. Affirmative action is racism, though some consider it necessary to counteract a history of discrimination based upon racism, kinda fighting fire with fire. The country club policy you describe would be a highly racist one, and should be considered such. Those who are not racist should endeavor to rid the country club of this policy as soon as possible, which probably should be as soon as some agreed level of black and jew participation had been obtained.

Highly racist? As contrasted with lowly racist or barely racist or meagerly racist? Certainly, we rightly consider some instances of racism more extreme than others. Our problems arise where we ignore or paper-over the real history of racism (or anti-semitism) where one race was considered superior and where exclusion from the community for the inferior race(s) (with its rights and priviledges) was deemed proper - morally, ethically and legally.

To use the same term, racism (or anti-semitism), to refer to actions or values which seek to redress such prior historical imbalances is to remove the most fundamental sense of that term. And that's precisely WHY it is being used in the manner you recommend. If it is 'racist' to forward policies or laws which work to redress the enormous prior disadvantages which blacks have suffered in America, then to attempt such laws or policies is just as bad as the earlier racism of lynchings etc. It must be a negative or destructive or immoral thing because it is 'racist'. Quite a little trick.

Here's a piece from Strom Thurmond's convention address in 1948 (the year I was born, as it happens)...

Quote:

Ladies and gentlement...there's not enough troops in the Army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigger race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes and into our churches."

There's racism. Strom apparently thought it prudent in this speech to omit mention he was having sex with his black help.

0 Replies

Proper and improper uses of the term "racism"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know