OT: Political Poll - Racist or Not Racist?

Ford SportTrac Forum

Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I think some of those that have the FURTHEREST to go in this country are the ones always crying "racist!" and crying that they are the victim of racism when no real racism exists (like in this case, I submit).

TJR, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. While I'll definitely grant that the gate swings very far both ways, and that there are lots of people with positions like you claim, I think that some of those that have the "FURTHEREST" (I know it's not a word, but I like it anyway ;) ) to go in this country are the ones always claiming that something has no racist content or intent at all, when only either extreme myopy, denial, or both could result in such a conclusion (like in this case, I submit).

I find that very, very "convenient."

Granted, but it's not nearly as "convenient" as attempts to claim that the satire in this image is entirely based on the witch doctor angle, and that it therefore has no racist content.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TJR,

OJ got off because Officer Furman was shown to have made many racist remarks. That probably infuriated many blacks and let them beleive that the police were capable of planting DNA evidence. That led to resonable doubt and he was aquitted.



Of course that has nothing to do with the question raised here by your poll.



Bill Cosby's remarks inflammed many blacks, but his is also black and that does not make him a racist. What he said was more in the vain of a Tuff Love speach, and that blacks cannot blame white people for all their problems. That story only made the news because Jesse Jackson did not like what Cosby said since hit too close to home and how Jackson

makes his money.



Yes, some blacks are overly sensitive to things similar to what was depicted in the doctored photo and some might even get violent, while others don't like it, but ignore it and move on.



If the author of the photo had thought about how a black person might find it insulting, he may have not published it. If he did think it might be insulting to blacks and decided he would publish it anyway, then he is insensitive and perhaps a racist. If it never dawned on him that some blacks might find the photo insulting, then he is probably not a racist, just very ignorant.



...Rich











 
If the author of the photo had thought about how a black person might find it insulting, he may have not published it. If he did think it might be insulting to blacks and decided he would publish it anyway, then he is insensitive and perhaps a racist. If it never dawned on him that some blacks might find the photo insulting, then he is probably not a racist, just very ignorant.

You left out at least one other possibility, the one I find most likely: The author not only thought it would be insulting to blacks, but created the image with that specific intent.
 
TJR, here's a question for you, similar to your question about lifeguards being advised about blacks swimming:



"In April, the Department of Homeland Security set off a firestorm of protest when it acknowledged it had produced a report titled: "Right-Wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," which warned that right-wing groups could be spurred to violence by the election of the nation's first African-American president. Republicans were quick to take issue."



(Note--Someone e-mailed that to me a while ago; I copied-and-pasted from that e-mail. But I don't know the source of the e-mail, or it's validity. For the sake of this discussion, let's hypothetically assume it to be true.)



Now--Was it acceptable for DHS to put together that report?



I posit that many of the Republicans and other conservatives who took issue with that report, are the same ones who say that it's perfectly acceptable for police, airport security, etc., to profile people and increase or decrease surveillance based on those profiles. Basically, they're A-OK with profiling, so long as they're not the subject of the profiles. Similarly, they're A-OK with images like the medicine man one here, but not when the shoe is on the other foot.



Thoughts?
 


Bill V,



My thoughts... Lots of supposition there in that scenario and posit.



I can't assume what those that protested thought, or how they felt about other profiling.



I can only comment on profiling in general and if I think that specific example constitutes profiling. I'm not sure it does.



I've gone on record here saying that not all profiling is bad. An A.P.B. is profiling, but not a bad thing.



TJR
 
Bill V,

I think I covered that scenario: "The author thought that it might offend some blacks and published it anyway". That, IMO would be the same as "Deliberately wanting to insult or offend".



...Rich
 
Something elst that hit me. If this has been touched on, please let me know since I do not feel like reading the whole discussion.



This picture "could" be racist if the words "Obama Care" were not on that picture. In that situation, I am sure 100% of those that voted would say it was racist. Since the words "Obama Care" are written on the picture, it is explaing Obama dressed up as a witch doctor to practice medicine vs. someone thinking that the picture is actually someone calling Obama an African Jungle Witch Doctor.



See my point?





Tom
 
Tom,

Yes, I see your point, and you are probably right about the words "Obama Care" medigating the intent of the photo. However, in the eyes of most blacks, those words below the photo do not soften the impact, they just tend to make it appear more covert.



...Rich
 
However, in the eyes of most blacks, those words below the photo do not soften the impact, they just tend to make it appear more covert.



You are correct. I am not Black, therefore I do not understand what it means to be Black in our society. Maybe if I were Black, I would see it differently.



A side note, I have a couple of FAR Right conservatives that work for me. They are so far to the right that they are starting to show up on the other side. Anyways, one had that picture of Obama up on his desk. He had to remove the sign because people were offended by that sign.



The ones that were offended were white.





Tom
 
I think Caymen gets it. The link between Obama Care being a bogus healthcare plan and a witch doctor being a bogus doctor is the major point most people get from the image.



Those that look for racism will tend to find it.



P.S. Can't believe I typed "FURTHEREST". Ha.
 
Richard L,



Also, there actually WERE black people calling Bill Cosby racist for his comments, just like many black people believed O.J. Was innocent (not just rightfully found NOT GUILTY), even after the civil case vedict. Because of examples like this I stand behind the fact that when it comes to race, many blacks are just as biased and driven by emotion as many whites.



If one removes emotion from the witch doctor image, I submit that seeing the image as racist is very difficult.



TJR
 
TJR,

If one removes emotion from the witch doctor image, I submit that seeing the image as racist is very difficult.



Racism IS an emotional issue, but that does not mean that it should be dismissed !! Yes, many whites will dismiss it as the ususal "Playing the race card", or that they are overly sensitive. That can be true in some cases or perhaps many cases. However, that does not make the photo any less offensive to many blacks.



If you were to show that photo with the wording on it to a large number of blacks, I am sure the vast majority would find the photo offensive. Some would get angry, some would be upset and others might consider it stupid and childish, but they would never the less be offended...Yes, for blacks racism is a very emotional issue the only difference now is that they don't just walk away and ignore it, they tell you when they are offended.



...Rich
 
Richard L,



Regarding your "they don't just walk away" statement, I have to wonder....



When do I (the white man) get to stop walking away, and stop silencing myself when I see minorities doing things that I find appalling, and offensive? For far too long whenever "we" do say something we are told to STFU and stop being racist!



I find the way third and fourth generation welfare families were living in New Orleans and blaming the government for their plight after the hurricane "offensive." But if I say something to that affect then I am called racist.



TJR



 
Here's an interesting piece that posits that the word "racist" no longer holds any meaning in the truest sense of the definition because that "card" is played so much an so quickly nowadays:



Dueling 'racist' claims defuse once powerful word



By JESSE WASHINGTON (AP) 15 hours ago



Everybody's racist, it seems.



Republican Rep. Joe Wilson? Racist, because he shouted "You lie!" at the first black president. Health care protesters, affirmative action supporters? Racist. And Barack Obama? He's the "Racist in Chief," wrote a leader of the recent conservative protest in Washington.



But if everybody's racist, is anyone?



The word is being sprayed in all directions, creating a hall of mirrors that is draining the scarlet R of its meaning and its power, turning it into more of a spitball than a stigma.



"It gets to the point where we don't have a word that we use to call people racist who actually are," said John McWhorter, who studies race and language at the conservative Manhattan Institute.



"The more abstract and the more abusive we get in the way we use the words, then the harder it is to talk about what we originally meant by those terms," said McWhorter.



What the word once meant and still does in Webster's dictionary is someone who believes in the inherent superiority of a particular race or is prejudiced against others.



This definition was ammunition for the civil rights movement, which 50 years ago used a strategy of confronting racism to build moral leverage and obtain equal rights.



Overt bigotry waned, but many still see shadows of prejudice across the landscape and cry racism.



Obama's spokesman has rejected suggestions that racism is behind criticism of the president. But others saw Wilson's eruption during the president's speech as just that, citing his past support of segregationists and his labeling the emergence of Strom Thurmond's secret black daughter after the senator's death a "smear."



"I think (Wilson's outburst) is based on racism," former President Jimmy Carter said at a town hall meeting. "There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president."



That's an easy charge to make against the rare individual carrying an "Obamacare" sign depicting the president as an African witch doctor with a bone through his nose. But it's almost impossible to prove or refute assertions that bias, and not raw politics, fuels opposition to Obama.



"You have to be very careful about going down that road. You've cried wolf," said Sean Wilentz, a Princeton University professor who studies U.S. political and social history.



"It's a way of interpreting the world, where race runs through everything everything is about race," said Wilentz, who supported Hillary Clinton in 2008 and claimed Obama's campaign falsely accused her of stoking racial fears.



"Everything is not about race," he said. "It's not Mississippi in 1965 any more. Even in Mississippi it's not Mississippi in 1965 any more."



Still, race remains a major factor in American life, said Brian D. Smedley, director of the health policy institute at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, which focuses on people of color.



"We know from a large body of social science that a large portion of Americans harbor racial bias," Smedley said. "In the context of health reform, it's quite evident that race plays a very large role in helping shape public opinion."



Yet Smedley chooses not to deploy the R-word: "It's difficult to say racism is the reason (for objections to health care) because people don't believe they are racist."



Many, though, have no doubt that other people are racist even when those other people are black.



The Manhattan Institute's McWhorter said that during the affirmative action battles of the 1990s, "racism" and "racist" began to be applied to liberal policies designed to redress past discrimination, then were extended to people who believed in those policies.



That's how they have come to be wielded against Obama.



"A racist is a person who discriminates or holds prejudices based on race. Discrimination is treatment based on category rather than individual merit," said Tom Molloy, a 65-year-old retired financial services executive from Brentwood, N.H. "Barack Obama favors policies that will give preference to groups based on race rather than individual merit. It's called affirmative action."



Mark Williams, one of the leaders of the Sept. 12 rallies in Washington, D.C., headlined a blog entry about the arrest of black scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. at his own home by a white police officer, "Racist In Chief Obama Fanning Flames of Racism." And too many bloggers to count are saying that Congressman Jim Clyburn, who marched with Martin Luther King Jr. and has called Wilson and other health care protesters racist, is the real racist himself.



One result of this infinite loop: Actual racists can get a pass simply denying it.



"Who does a guy have to lynch around here to get called a racist?" the writer Ta-Nehisi Coates asked in an article about charges and denials of racism in the Obama-Clinton primary.



The rise in whites accusing blacks of racism is the inevitable result of years of black identity politics, which created a blueprint for whites who feel threatened by America's changing demographics, says Carol Swain, a Vanderbilt University professor and author of "The New White Nationalism In America."



"We need to rethink what is racist and who can legitimately call whom racist," Swain said, citing the argument that blacks can't be racist because racism requires power.



"With a black president, a black attorney general, and blacks holding various power positions around the country, now might be a time when we can concede that anyone can express attitudes and actions that others can justifiably characterize as racist."



Perhaps this is a strange symbol of racial progress equal-opportunity victimization, so to speak.



"In 100 years, when people chronicle how America got past race," said McWhorter, "the uptick in white people calling blacks racist is going to be seen as a symptom of the end."



Jesse Washington covers race and ethnicity for The Associated Press
 
TrainTrac,



EXACTLY.



The term racist is thrown around so much, used as an accusation when what is really meant is "STFU", and defined by hypocritical standards to such an extent that it is now almost meaningless.



Calling the president a liar is racist? - Hardly!



Going to a tea-party rally makes one a racist? - Come on!



Holding a sign of BHO as "The Joker" is racist? - Not even close!



All of these things, and more, have been used to label people as racist.



Many said that having a black president would show just how far this country has come, and shine a light any racial tensions and racists out there....and it has. I think the racial tensions, and the racists out there, to a larger extent, are the ones crying "racist!" and finding racism in everything.



TJR
 
Holding a sign of BHO as "The Joker" is racist? - Not even close!



Holding a sign of BHO dressed up with bones in his nose, rings around his neck, and holding a spear is racist.





Tom
 
Bill V,

I think I covered that scenario: "The author thought that it might offend some blacks and published it anyway". That, IMO would be the same as "Deliberately wanting to insult or offend".



...Rich

Then I misunderstood your statement. I took "The author thought that it might offend some blacks and published it anyway" to mean that the author didn't intend for it to be racist when he was creating it, then realized that it could be interpretted that way, but proceded to publish it anyway. Which I think you'll agree is far different than if he had created it with the intent from the start of insulting blacks.
 
Bill V.

My point was that if the author thought or knew it might be offensive and published it anyway, then IT WAS DELIBERATE. In that case the words "Obama Care" are there to make it more covert and disquised his true intent.



JTR,

When do I (the white man) get to stop walking away, and stop silencing myself when I see minorities doing things that I find appalling, and offensive?



You don't and probably never will. Unless it involves you, the behavior or attitude of others is not your concern or problem...It's their problem, so don't make it yours.



I agree that the are some people who will push the limits of tolerance just to solicite some response that they can use as an excuse.



As for Bill Cosby's remarks...He was really responding to the total lack of leadership on the part of the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Rev Sharpton, etc and many other leaders in the black community who are very quick to see racism in the most casual remarks made by some white person. This only servers to reenforces the notion that the white man is deliberately keeping the blacks in a subordinate role. Cosby knows there is racial prejudice in America, but if all the blacks can do is whine about what someone said, they will never move from the spot they are in.



Cosby wants them to get up of their a$$, get an education, get a job, stop making babies they cannot afford to raise and get their own life on tract. That's the only way they can resolve their problem...Nobody can fix it but themselves. I refer to blacks in this context only because it was blaks that Cosby was talking about, but there a plenty of white men who should be listening to what he said as well !



...Rich
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Richard L said:
Holding a sign of BHO dressed up with bones in his nose, rings around his neck, and holding a spear is racist.



Yes, I would agree; if the sign ONLY had that image. But the sign and image in question has much more. It makes a statement, and the picture, which "could" be viewed as racist in that context, FITS the point of the statement.



The only example I can think of is one that I am going to make up.



Here goes...



Let's say Detroit got blindsided by some new legislation that gives some some advantage to Japanese imports and some disadvantage to domestic vehicles. Let's further posit that on the day that the legislation passes protestors put up a sign that resembles iconic photos of the damage the burning battleships bombed at Pearl Harbor, but instead of battleships the image shows bombed Ford and GM cars. The caption on the sign reads: "A day that will live in infamy".



Would that be racist?



I say NO. Might it offend? Yes. Might it open up an old wound, or speak to something some would like to forget? Yes. Might it make those emotional? Yes. But it would first, and foremost be making a statement by taking something that happened, something that was real, and something that isn't racist, and parodying it to make a point.



That is what the Obama witch doctor sign does. It takes something real; parodies it to make a statement, and along the way, it adds in a sprinkle of non-PC to help get the message heard.



If we CAN'T do such things, then I think some need to get over themselves.



TJR
 
RichardL said:
You don't and probably never will. Unless it involves you, the behavior or attitude of others is not your concern or problem...It's their problem, so don't make it yours.



But that is just it...who gets to define what really "involves" one.



For example, someone holding an Obama witch doctor sign doesn't really have to INVOLVE anyone else if others choose not to look at it, not to let it bother them, and not to get involved with it. Freedom of speech, right? Freedom to look the other way, right?



But if there are those that get to silence that type of speech, and that type of freedom, then I want equal rights.



I want the right to not be called a racist if I chastise someone who is playing overly loud, gang-banging rap music in public, and my 8 year old daughter or my 60 year old church-going mother-in law has to hear it, what with its MF this, and Ni66er that.



Likewise, I want to be able to tell the guy that is wearing his pants around his ankles and showing his butt crack that such dress is not a'ight, and do so again without being called a racist.



Of course, you will probably already say I "CAN" do these things. To that I say...YOU GO FIRST! ;)



TJR
 

Latest posts

Top