Someone posted a meme that read, "Trump didn't bring division. Trump was brought by it."
I said, "Bring it? I'm not entirely sure he can even do it.
lain:
I said, "Bring it? I'm not entirely sure he can even do it.
lain:
Town Quixote's
- Thread starter Town Heretic
- Start date
I'm developing a Magic Christian 8 Ball. It just has the one answer (John 3:16), but you can still shake the crap out of it, which is satisfying.
My father likes to order new things when we go out to eat together. Tonight, after a large plate of something was set in front of him at a local Mexican restaurant, he asked me, "What did I order?"
I answered, "The senior special."
A few bites in he stopped, then, without looking up, said, "Very funny."
I answered, "The senior special."
A few bites in he stopped, then, without looking up, said, "Very funny."
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
I've a couple of problems with this:
1) Context. It was not calling all blacks names. It was calling specific UN members backwards for recognizing China during the Nixon years. It was an expression of frustration not intended to become or be anywhere near racist. Was it? Only in the limited sense. I'm not arguing propriety, I'm arguing the blatant misquote many have jumped on, imho, as lemmings. One does not equal the other. You are a lawyer, I think you'd have to take Reagan if you were appointed and ensure justice is done.
2) I do see Reagan's flaws, but we don't put our hope in trust in any but God. Psalm 20:7
Not to you in particular: 3) We are bashing Obama and bashing Trump as if they are the problem. This is incorrect. These were voted by representation of values or lack thereof. As Christians, we pray, believe, hope, cry, and pray some more. We can talk about what is being done against our faith and values, but your tack here (now to you personally), was to call Reagan a racist 'monkey.' While you may argue no, it is indeed the 'counter' to 'monkey's wearing shoes.' Think: You simply went to character bashing instead of weighing the value of the previous comment AND out of context to include all or many of a certain race. However Reagan meant it, is Reagan's alone. The media went with the trash bin approach. We believers need to look more closely. We believers need to grace more (back to Politics participants in general on TOL). We need to ensure we are very different from the world and how it equally responds. If not, then the pastors of the past were right: Being no different, we should probably stay out of politics but for voting as best we can and praying. Somehow, we've got to be and look different than the world and understand the larger picture of God's world and the spirits and principalities behind, not the flesh and blood in front. Nothing in bashing Obama did or would do anything. Nothing in bashing Trump will either.
4) A little off topic, but for the need to remember our Christian calling: There are only two masters in government as part of the world. This is never taught in law school. Justice is God's. It is 'blind' when it executes according to God's goodness. Without it, it cannot favor man equitably and a secular (godless) government cannot be 'good.' Mark 10:18
It means, I believe, neither Trump nor Obama were 'good.' Obama used the Lord's name in vain just as Trump has. Which side is God on? Neither (better said they are not on God's to date, as far I understand their beliefs respectively). We as believers need to remember the bigger picture, we get caught up in politics and the media push (else we'd not start all these threads off of what was said in the news). We (I, included) need to spend more time reflecting the Savior.
None of this was prompted particularly by your post but it was something I've been praying about and dwelling on for the past two weeks in reading Paul's epistles. It just happened that what I've been thinking and praying on, happened to be represented in this particular instance.
In Him -Lon
I only have one: it's racist.
So I can call a nation of blacks monkeys who can barely stand to wear shoes and it is only racist if I make sure I include every black, without exception?
I don't believe that works out, Lon.
When you're comfortable describing a large number of black people as monkeys, you're comfortable with a racist sentiment/thinking.
It's not a misquote. I literally heard him say it word for word. I don't care if frustration brought it to the surface, supra.
This isn't a court and I owe him nothing more or less than an honest acceptance of an uncomfortable truth. This was a part of who he was, much as I wished it weren't.
Who argued otherwise? No, this attempt to mitigate doesn't impact what I'm speaking to. I had thought him a better man than it turns out he was...that's not very shocking when it comes to politicians, but it's still disappointing.
I think different people attack those two for vastly different reasons. I'm not sure how that applies to Reagan though.
I hope that as Christians we first do, then pray, while hoping, and ultimately trusting God to use our efforts as He will toward the end He desires.
No. I didn't actually do that. Read the quote again.
What I did was quote him, word for word, and proffer that the idea of resting on his thinking as a moral foundation had run, statutorily. You gleaned the racist part of that simply by reading his words and you understood that to be the objection, because as much as you want to rewrite and mitigate this, you know better.
No, I didn't. I noted his words and then drew a conclusion, that resting on his words for moral authority was problematic. If setting out his thinking is bashing then he has himself for an enemy.
But let's accept your proffer in terms of what led to the remark, made in private, to Nixon. It's no different than my getting cut off in traffic by some black guy and dropping an N-bomb. Stress may reveal us, frustration may reveal us, but it doesn't create who we are, what we believe, and what we're comfortable with.
It's not veiled. It's not a mystery. It's not even original, as racist nonsense goes.
I'm not the media. And I'd say his words belonged in a trash bin. Now you can blame frustration, you can blame the media, heck, you can blame me, but the only one who is responsible for what he said is the man himself. And I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that he'd tell you that.
I think you're confusing two very different things. We shouldn't be less intelligent than the world. We should, however, be forgiving of anyone who makes that sort of mistake and asks to be. We shouldn't revel in or enjoy the failure of men, understanding our nature.
I didn't bash Obama. I differed with him. I was disappointed by some of the promises he made and then failed to keep, especially relating to my area of the nation. So he lost my support. This president...well, I'm on record before he was put in the position to be, writ large, exactly what he was (and wasn't) before taking office. I think noting the corruption and other issues attending his administration is productive, in that it may lead to the absence of a second act, politically speaking.
Trump and Jimmy Carter have both lusted. Leaving off the rest they're darn near identical. But then, the devil is in the details, isn't he.
:cheers:
Lon
Well-known member
Against two people. A problem for others? :nono: "IF" you insist it is, the burden of that proof is upon you and the unscrupulous media. Scruples demand one rethink this. Simply doubling down isn't worth anything. I've read the article and the context. Further, it is JUST as bad to use this as it was for Reagan to say it. Why? Because you simply dug something meaningful Reagan said and attempted to compromise it with a moment of poor judgement. Should I dismiss all Town Heretic says as worthless based off of one (1) poor thing Town ever said??? Think about this some more, please.
No, but if you were ONLY talking about two, "I" certainly cannot apply that poor thing said to the larger populace. There were only a couple of UN delegates talked about. Bad? Sure. Applied to all? No. That is what someone without scruples would say to sling mud. Patti Davis said her father taught her differently. It means, regardless of what this looks like, it is in-congruent with a value Reagan held/taught to his daughter.
Two. You've NO idea if he meant all blacks because, and specifically, the two he was talking about voted 'ineptly' by his reckoning, to allow China into the UN. THAT is the context of the quote. If you and media, without scruples, without caring whether you are right or wrong, apply it to the greater representation, this is on the media and you. Alone. Worse? It was a cheapshot of your memory work to try and discredit by association. It amounts to character maligning and is a poor debate tactic. Why not simply address the comment without digging for completely unrelated mud? Why?
Sure you did, but there is a line problem between your ears and your interpretations at times. It is a 'convenience.' I'll say it again, you've no idea how far Reagan intended this particular quote to go. He was frustrated with only those delegates that voted a communist country into representation in the UN. Wrong? Yes! But to apply it to "All Blacks" for instance, it and can be very wrong. I've heard Chris Rock talk about hating a "N-word." He never means "All Blacks." Its not what he means. It'd be wrong, to apply it so.
I'm glad you added 'honest' in there. Yes. Yes you do owe that. It doesn't matter if you are in court. It matters how Christ is our Lord and what He's called us to. Gossip (unfounded OR unfound-able) accusation is out. The Christian rule is simple: Give the benefit of the doubt. The court system isn't too far behind "proven" guilty otherwise innocent.
Patti Davis said her father's legacy should not be weighed by his inappropriate comment while a governor, but to remember he grew in wisdom and stature when she suggested we look at his legacy and life, merely than one quote. I've heard some things about Lincoln, but have grown to ignore a little bit and allow him to be human. I think holding this against Reagan is out of balance. He wasn't perfect. I've a few problems with his presidency but I believe he was a very good president, and I believed he truly loved his God and country.
At these points, it is more a reflection on the opposition of the public values, than the men who happen to also hold those values. Both men reflected well, the values of a good part of their voters. Obama very much catered to his constituents and partisan politics when he said "...you don't like it, beat us!" Trump also is as partisan. He represents a good portion of the people who voted him in office.
MUST pray first. "Do" is last. We need guidance and to know we are doing the right actions.
It has to be seen as 'racist' for anyone to read what you are saying as anything that would be discrediting. Whether or not I read 'racist' or 'unworthy', or whatever discrediting intent isn't but a discredit. For some, one or the other will be more damaging, but to me, reading this next to "We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."
There is a clear intent at dismissal. Better? It'd have been to take the quote, at its premise, and simply say "he didn't say 'every time.' It'd have made your point AND left Reagan intact on whatever good he'd tried to do and say for this country. I hope and pray I don't read the poor comment from now on, every time I'd bring up something Reagan said. It'd really disappoint me if that's all now, left of his legacy. It surely isn't for me.
Absolutely agree, but in context, I'd not say you were a racist for it. When and if someone would try to make your quote apply to all people of color, or all who drive certain cars, when clearly (or not) such wasn't your intent (even obliquely), then I'm falsely accusing over what I'm not capable of delivering on, let alone its problematic for those who believe all things and hope all things. It DOES in fact make me look naive, but I think its good to be purposefully naive. It doesn't mean, unaware.
The problem, as I see it, is this means "Reagan is a racist" still. "However he meant it" is up still, for the scope of application. If you called a man a word, you certainly don't mean that men of that color, caliber, hair color, demeanor are all referred to by the statement. We are in an age where "N" is mostly taboo, but apparently not for those of a certain color and possibly not when it applies. I simply don't. About the worst I've said is "Guy! That could have killed us!" whether he hears me or not in the other car.
See, if you took that bet, then we'd both say using it against his other words, then, would be inappropriate, knowing the man as best as two citizens possibly can.
This might be a sad admission: I've thought we are two reasonably intelligent men who aren't less intelligent, (now the admission) so I'm not catching the context of your statement nor what prompts it... :think:
Not quite capturing your intent on this either or the context. It may then mean you'll have to travel the rest of the intelligence road by yourself if I can't catch up.
Again, this was concerning more of 'our' behavior than those who are clearly below moral standard. We don't have to turn blind eyes, but we do have to be careful with our comments. Infidelity had been and continues to be a problem from the days of King David. My concern is yet about how 'we' respond rather than how 'they act.' Those in office who are not believers will have a hard time emulating love for the Savior or our values. As I said, this portion was more to the thread than to you personally but I appreciate your input on it for my concern (one reason why I differentiated and yet kept it to you: to get your further comments which I appreciate (thank you). In Him -Lonnie
I'm going to keep my response to essentials.
On the notion of numbers controlling more than numbers.
You were comfortable enough to use the rhetoric. And he wasn't even in the room. If it was one guy, two guys, any number of them and they were literally in front of him maybe, maybe you could argue he was trying to reach for the most insulting thing he could find. He'd still have a character issue, but maybe, just maybe a different one...but that's not what happened here. Here, he was on phone to another white guy with his own racial issues, and he felt comfortable enough to speak his mind.
:cheers:
On the notion of numbers controlling more than numbers.
One would be sufficient. It's not volume that defines racism.
The proof was right in front of you. The rest is just a matter of how far you're willing to go to attempt to mitigate the fairly obvious.
No, they don't. I get that it bothers you. It should. It bothered me. But the response to grandpa comparing a black man to an animal, especially a monkey, isn't to try to find a way to say he really didn't mean it. Sorry, Lon, but he really did. The only real question involves how that sentiment influences action, or if it does.
I heard the tape. There's no context that magically transforms the racially charged rhetoric he used into the innocuous. It is what it is.
Lots of people know better and teach better than they do. I'm glad that he was at the very least one of those. You know Mencken? He left a diary.
Immaterial provided he meant it about any. Because at that point the only distinction between one or a hundred was his level of personal frustration. Volume doesn't control racism. My grandfather on my mother's side was Faulkner's racist. Every black person he knew was the exception to a larger, horrible belief regarding the race. How many black people you're willing to dehumanize and how many exceptions you allow has nothing to do with being a racist or believing racist nonsense.
And I'll note, again, that it doesn't matter. If I call you a N... and you're a black man, I can't say, "But it was just the one! And he really irked me. I'm not racist."
You were comfortable enough to use the rhetoric. And he wasn't even in the room. If it was one guy, two guys, any number of them and they were literally in front of him maybe, maybe you could argue he was trying to reach for the most insulting thing he could find. He'd still have a character issue, but maybe, just maybe a different one...but that's not what happened here. Here, he was on phone to another white guy with his own racial issues, and he felt comfortable enough to speak his mind.
People without racial issues don't compare blacks to monkeys, Lon.
I think holding him accountable is important.
So you believe and so you said. I said what I believe. And there it stands.
:cheers:
Of course.
Lon
Well-known member
Then you'd agree with Town. I don't on this particular because I've seen old men use different terms and they've never meant the entire race, nor was it only designated for one or two persons of a particular color. A remark in frustration to any particular person isn't to be applied to the rest of the race/group. It was wrong yes, but to make it worse in your own head? As far as I've ever found, with few exceptions, it is going too far and being less than charitable. It is exactly a gross exaggeration and error. Okay, there are those who disagree. Fine but I certainly can prove the accusation is much further than the scope of the comment. One then, as far as words and correct meaning, means and only 'one.' "Two" means and only 'two.'
Lon
Well-known member
Or me, finding it over-reaching and problematic? I don't mean it with ill-will either. He was wrong. The question is whether 1) he thought all of a particular race were simian rather than simply frustrated with what he saw as an inept vote and 2) whether he changed from it later in life and grew into the dignity of the Presidency.
He certainly wasn't perfect. He certainly shouldn't have said anything terrible about African UN delegates. My naivety only goes so far, and as I said, it is often purposeful (willful). Some judges have no restraint and forget blind justice when they give too long a sentence for a lesser crime than they one they are prejudice themselves against. My aim is still balance, just and fair.
I think too, simply addressing the scope of the prior statement wouldn't bring up all this attached dialogue and the necessity (I believe) of it. He simply said in 'some' cases individuals are to blame, not society. Wouldn't it still be better and would have been better to simply talk about whether such was true rather than aim for character and/or weight of his thoughts?
Where from here? I think I embrace you as my brother as well, and hope that something meaningful passes for eternal worth here.
In Him -Lon
"To see those, those monkeys from those African countries — damn them, they're still uncomfortable wearing shoes!" Ronald Reagan
More than a few fairly passive racists have made that mistake. The sort that lets a woman say that Michelle Obama looks like a gorilla, then claim not to actually be a racist.
Indisputably, to me. But I don't understand why you think he was wrong. I think he was wrong because he used a racist trope.
No, that's not the question. The question is why did he use a racist trope, aimed at black men, to express his frustration?
I don't know. The comment was made in 1971. Reagan would have been, what, sixty? And he'd lived through the Civil Rights Movement by that point. If that didn't do it I'm not sure anything would. I'm not even sure he thought of himself as racist or of his remarks as being something like the N-bomb. Likely he didn't.
More than a few fairly passive racists have made that mistake. The sort that lets a woman say that Michelle Obama looks like a gorilla, then claim not to actually be a racist.
We're all imperfect. Hitler wasn't perfect either. It's not a particularly strong mitigator.
He could have strongly objected to their votes without the monkey business, to be sure.
Then be those things and don't excuse or mitigate the inexcusable and plain.
Lon
Well-known member
As I've said in the other thread, it'd be a lot like me calling a Cajun an ignorant shirtless hillbilly hog: Not racist. It may be, but I can't read minds as to such intent. It is, yet, imho, wrong to throw that wilder accusation.
Again, it is racist toward a very specific kind of person. "If" you label to all peoples of a particular color, it is much farther reaching than proof can sustain. When Chris Rock, for instance, uses the "N-word" he uses it specifically and only for people of reprehensible behavior.
Again, large binning a frustration as if both are the same. I'm not sure of the context of the women who said she looked like a gorilla. Mad? Because she happened to actually resemble one with an expression? Making fun of her because of her color? What was the context?
Most things compared to Hitler seldom are. It is about as far reaching as trying to discredit Reagan's former statement by character assassination, as if one discounts the credibility of the other....
Absolutely. It was wrong. Why? Because calling any of God's people derogatory names, even in frustration lacks holiness.
I didn't seek to discredit Reagan based on one poor comment. Fair and just doesn't do the mudslinging and dirt digging I don't believe. I'm not judge here, but if I were, I'd rule the latter inadmissible. The latter has little bearing on whether he was correct about society not being blamed most times, for atrocities of individuals.
That has to always be returned to as the actual focus, because the latter is distraction and really doesn't do anything regarding the truthfulness of his former statement. You made a statement counterwise. This kind of discrediting language may be as bad as Reagan's comment. It casts him in a purposeful discrediting light much like backwards, wearing no shoes would convey.
But it's not like that, Lon. It's like he called a Africans monkeys, a racist trope so old it was uninspired in his grandfather's day. It's no mystery and yours is no real parallel.
There are two potential responses. The first is, sure, black guys who tick him off. But then, the ticking off is only the event that allows him to express a sentiment that runs deeper because its premise is deeper.
If you use it at all it's reaching farther than any proof can sustain.
I'm pretty sure I've heard him use it affectionately. A lot of black people use it among themselves. A very different thing.
The context is that the woman used a racist trope. The rest is immaterial, but since you won't believe Hitler was a murderer until you see pictures of him jamming kids into an oven, here's some more background on the Tweet: the woman was the director of Clay County Development Corp. in West Virginia. She had no particular connection to the Obamas. She was a Trump supporter.
After Trump had won the election she sent out the following Tweet, "It will be refreshing to have a classy, beautiful, dignified First Lady in the White House. I'm tired of seeing a Ape in heels." In other words, leaving off her grammar, she's a racist. It might shock you, but there are a great many of them about these days and they're less in hiding.
For instance, her mayor responded, "You just made my day, Pam." The mayor later resigned.
I think it's hilarious to describe quoting someone as character assassination. It's more aptly character suicide.
When you recognize Reagan's words were derogatory then you have to understand why they were. And when you understand that you understand my point, or you have a problem trying to define that why.
To the contrary, you seem bent on removing all but a literary connection between him and the event.
You just contradicted yourself. When you decide to characterize a thing as mudslinging and dirt digging--and what, precisely, are you tagging with that--you're standing in the robes.
What kind of language, particularly expressed? By which I mean literally set it out and then characterize it. Otherwise I can't know what you're speaking to.
It puts him in the light he's given us to see him by. I quoted a man uttering a racist trope and you (and anyone who speaks the language) understands the language to be derogatory, you must then understand why it's derogatory. And if you understand that you have no foundation to object to the utterance being noted for what it is and the sentiment being attributed to the fellow who made that choice.
Lon
Well-known member
Well, it could, but like you'd said, it could have been a throw-over from his father's day. Surely not appropriate nor God-honoring. My father called Hispanics "spicks' (not sure if that's derogatory or just truncated) and because he fought in the war, all orientals were dehumanized to a certain name. Now I've never called either group by that name and I have never been so mad at any particular that'd I'd repeat it.
As you may realize and have come to know, I try to empathize for both groups. I was caught one day with this passage, in surprise: Matthew 5:23
I'd always thought the offender needed to make it right, not the offended. While I do find Reagan's words inappropriately wrong, I 1) need to be careful not to try and read between the lines with accusation regardless of the 97 times it really was intended racism before it and 2) to try and balance problems like this. In a sense, "Reagan" was my father. I love my step-father and grew, because of him, to love Reagan, faults and all. This doesn't excuse the wrong behavior, but I did learn many god-honoring values and manners from my step-father.
Well, again, as above, if there is even an inkling of doubt, I think it best to take the high road. Naive? Yes, I agree and will always agree (I think) with that assessment of me. It isn't because of not being there nor being in the trenches.
Yet one more of the issues here is not that I'm insensitive, at least not to the point of turning a blind eye. That's not it. Rather, I think there is a difference between real tears and just a complaining spirit and I really don't want to empower the latter. We'd cave to every whim as a country at that point. Is this grounds for that? It might be, but does it 'have' to be, in this case?
:nono: He said he 'hate myself an N-.' He didn't limit it to a darker color, however.
It isn't that I wouldn't believe it, it was that I have to have context in order to avoid inappropriate response.
Hurtful and totally unhelpful so it is just ugly angst. If she thinks all women of color are simian, she's a racist.
Same company. Bad company at that.
I do.
As I explained, it is about the context of the comment. It was 'over-against' a different comment. Actually a meaningful comment. Why? Discredit. Slam the messenger as disreputable by inference of a former poor discretion.
Not seeing how I'm standing in mud-slinging or dirt digging robes...Bringing up one thing about a person to cast him or her in a poor light, when on the discussion table is an unrelated presentation concerning societal blame. I see it as problematic and it was one of two objections. The first talks about Reagan's comment scope, the second that we should be talking about it, in context of the former, at all.
The two objections:
1) That it had nothing to do with the prior quote that should have been treated upon its own merit. I think, in court, it'd be inadmissible. As I said above, my father, certainly inappropriate and actually taught to be at the 'enemy' was a good man. His whole character wasn't ugly nor all things he said uglified by his poor term.
2) It is yet not by necessity aimed at all, but 'a certain kind of.' Bad? Yes, but only because of the derogatory of the two or so applied to. It need not be applied to an entire race. It cannot be proved it was his intent and he is not around today to defend himself.
Lon, I think I'm going to let this conversation play out in the other thread which is on the point, rather than continue to have it here, where I never really intended for prolonged, single topic anything to play out. I'm going to transfer my answer to a couple of points raised in your last response to that thread.
LINK to that continuation.
LINK to that continuation.
Last edited:
So, DeVos wants larger class sizes and fewer teachers? What she doesn't appear to know about education would overfill a classroom. Putting her in charge of that department was like putting an imbecile in charge of organizing a Mensa convention. lain:
lain: