racism

[musterion]

obviously purex knows better than them :carryon:

Yep, because he's another Talcum X.

BTW...a high-strung person on another thread is accusing me of being you. I don't know if you want to take that as a compliment or as a bad sign.

 

[resodko]

Yep, because he's another Talcum X.

:darwinsm:

BTW...a high-strung person on another thread is accusing me of being you. I don't know if you want to take that as a compliment or as a bad sign.

if i were you, i'd be terribly offended :sozo2:

 

[musterion]

Is this racist?

 

[resodko]

the hair doesn't look right

 

[musterion]

Let's not be art critics here. Does it strike you as racist? Yes, there's a point to this.

 

[resodko]

me?

nope


but i recognize that it will infuriate others



and i mock them for their whiny sensitivity

 

[musterion]

I know. So I wait for the outrageously outrageous outrage.

 

[Town Heretic]

I quickly understand the reference to "the blackest land". That's fine, rich soil that is great for growing things. I would just as quickly view the reference to "the whitest people" as being racist. I wouldn't need anyone to explain it to me.

It's the assumption that white is superior. The "whitest people" are then the best.

The use in the banner is in line with another popular expression of that day and earlier, "Mighty white of you". Race was used that way, the dominant inference being positive and the rest negative.

 

[Tambora]

Tam, the sign isn't there any longer.

Right. It was taken down.
Take a guess why?

Why get all bent out of shape over a sign that was hanging 55 years ago?

I'm not bent out of shape over it.

 

[Quincy]

"Mighty white of you". Race was used that way, the dominant inference being positive and the rest negative.

If someone said that to me today I'd have no clue that they meant some racial. I'd honestly think they were calling me plain, dull and boring. Which...... :think:

 

[Nick M]

It's the assumption that white is superior. The "whitest people" are then the best.

I will use this stand alone out of context statement to show racism and bigotry. It is against white people. In Saint Louis and around the country, in general, whites think the grand jury deciding no crime was committed is correct. That is because non-whites that oppose the decision are racist and see through a race filter. They ignore that he attacked an officer inside the car, discharging the officers weapon.

 

[Town Heretic]

If someone said that to me today I'd have no clue that they meant some racial. I'd honestly think they were calling me plain, dull and boring. Which...... :think:

That's a good sign, but the sign in the photograph is circa 1940 or 50 something.

 

[musterion]

Other side of the can.

So is the can racist, or inclusive?

 

[PureX]

Other side of the can.

So is the can racist, or inclusive?

The fact that you're asking is what makes it racist, not the content on the can. As you would not be asking the question in the first place if you were not already aware that such imagery carries a negative racial connotation.

It's like asking if the word "n-i-g-g-e-r" is racist. No, the word is not anything but a word. So of course the word in not racist. What's racist is the negative connotation that's been connected to the word.

But of course you already know all this. You're just playing games so you can spew this racist nonsense while pretending you're not. This is exactly how racism continues in this country even though it's no longer as overt as it once was. The racism and the racists have not disappeared, they've just learned to hide their bile behind closed doors, and behind silly semantics.

 

[musterion]

It's like asking if the word "n-i-g-g-e-r" is racist. No, the word is not anything but a word. So of course the word in not racist. What's racist is the negative connotation that's been connected to the word.

Thanks for confirming the fact that LBJ was a racist. And for also confirming, yet again, that you're a small-minded, knee-jerk reactionary leftist who believes merely asking questions can be racist.

 

[Quincy]

The fact that you're asking is what makes it racist, not the content on the can. As you would not be asking the question in the first place if you were not already aware that such imagery carries a negative racial connotation.

It's like asking if the word "n-i-g-g-e-r" is racist. No, the word is not anything but a word. So of course the word in not racist. What's racist is the negative connotation that's been connected to the word.

But of course you already know all this. You're just playing games so you can spew this racist nonsense while pretending you're not. This is exactly how racism continues in this country even though it's no longer as overt as it once was. The racism and the racists have not disappeared, they've just learned to hide their bile behind closed doors, and behind silly semantics.

I agree about the connotation behind the word. It's all about what people think when they see someone else or what they infer when they read a word. I'd go so far to say that genetics and skin color are only brought into this erroneously. Of the people we consider racists, how many of them would have a problem with someone like Carlton Banks or his father from Fresh Prince? Not as many as you'd think, yet most of them would abhor the character Will Smith played if they met him in person and that's based off of nothing but his clothing, appearance and vernacular being different than theirs.

I see it here at a local store frequently. There is a man there that most of the shoppers love. He's black but behaves and has the appearance of any common person around here. I see the same people stop to talk to him, even hug him that I see move over to the other isle to avoid another black person who has the appearance of a typical rapper. So, I would argue that someone's genetic makeup isn't the source of the problem. What happens is that people have a fear of different subculture from their own and they erroneously attach that fear to a label that should only be used to identify something genetic or anatomical. I don't think most of them hate someone purely on the color of their skin, but rather it's about how they believe that person is going to act without even knowing the person. Pretty stupid.

 

[Town Heretic]

Thanks for confirming the fact that LBJ was a racist.

Of course he was. So was Lincoln and so was Jefferson. The more important information involves what they did or didn't do about it, or in spite of it. Sorry, I haven't been following the conversations, but I thought this was a point worth talking about.

 

[Aimiel]

Certainly demeanor, clothing and indeed every cultural expression might let us know that someone is trustworthy or not. These are keys that security personnel use to profile those who need to be followed as they enter a store or even police, who both know from experience are more likely to be suspect, at the very least and more often than: the culprit they end up putting into handcuffs. If you hang out with the wrong crowd, you don't only copy their style of dress or demeanor you also tend to commit the sins they love. Now I'm not saying everyone who wears his hat backwards is a criminal, but many who do so are. The large number of blacks populating our prisons isn't simply because they are stopped and questioned by police more often than whites, it is a simple fact that more blacks commit crimes and that's because they aren't doing anything wrong (according to their culture) stealing from 'the man,' or committing other crimes. They're fighting the power.

Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

 

[PureX]

I agree about the connotation behind the word. It's all about what people think when they see someone else or what they infer when they read a word. I'd go so far to say that genetics and skin color are only brought into this erroneously. Of the people we consider racists, how many of them would have a problem with someone like Carlton Banks or his father from Fresh Prince? Not as many as you'd think, yet most of them would abhor the character Will Smith played if they met him in person and that's based off of nothing but his clothing, appearance and vernacular being different than theirs.

I see it here at a local store frequently. There is a man there that most of the shoppers love. He's black but behaves and has the appearance of any common person around here. I see the same people stop to talk to him, even hug him that I see move over to the other isle to avoid another black person who has the appearance of a typical rapper. So, I would argue that someone's genetic makeup isn't the source of the problem. What happens is that people have a fear of different subculture from their own and they erroneously attach that fear to a label that should only be used to identify something genetic or anatomical. I don't think most of them hate someone purely on the color of their skin, but rather it's about how they believe that person is going to act without even knowing the person. Pretty stupid.

What you're describing, though, is just the natural trepidation that we have for people who are different from us. But I don't think that's a form of prejudice or bigotry, per se. Not even in the case of the man who looks like a rapper. It's not illogical to be nervous of someone who deliberately makes themselves look like someone to be feared, as is the case with people who dress like rappers, or bikers, or red-neck survivalists, or whatever other "tough-guy style" that tends to arise in our culture.

I think bigoted bias, like racism, is different. I think in this instance the bigot projects all sorts of negative connotations onto someone they otherwise have no reason to fear, or loath, and who they actually know little or nothing about. Racism is bigotry based on race, and bigotry is essentially scapegoating. It's making the scapegoated person into a vessel for all of one's own emotional crap, and then wanting to punish them as the representation of it.

 

[musterion]

Of course he was. So was Lincoln and so was Jefferson. The more important information involves what they did or didn't do about it, or in spite of it. Sorry, I haven't been following the conversations, but I thought this was a point worth talking about.

Insofar as how racist we could determine them as having been per our definition(s) of the term, I'd consider cutting Jefferson and Lincoln a bit - just a bit - more slack than LBJ, as they were (at risk of cliche) the products of a relatively unenlightened time. LBJ had no such excuse.