never say bluebeard, yellowbelly, whiteknuckle, greenback, silvertongue etc. it could be considered... i couldn't resist any longer
Your examples are the popular definitions, but many academics prefer to reserve the use of the word "racist" for systematic acts of prejudice and discrimination against a particular ethnicity. Anyone can be a racist as long as they're in an empowered situation (which can be on a scale as large as a nation or small as a basketball court). You're correct that it doesn't have to be a minority - my mistake. However, that still doesn't change the fact that "redneck" isn't a racist term. Prejudiced, maybe but not racist.
Ahhhh......that explains it. Most academics are silly little liberals anyway. Like my wife always says, "if you can 'do'--teach!"
What's liberal about the definition? If anything, it's a narrower, more conservative definition. Good to see your wife got it right for once. Most dumbasses say "if you can't do - teach."
Yep..."popular" definitions. That Webster never does quite get it right. I mean we even had to have Bill Clinton tell us what "is" means. Sorry...had to be done.
Pole, you were the one name calling. He said "most dumbasses", leaving an opportunity where you are the exception of those who use that phrase. I found it a lot funnier and more original than your initial point anyway. I do like your/Webster's definition of racism though. And no, using "Redneck" is not racist. Personally, when I think Ashcroft I think zealot, reactionary ideologue, or the like, not redneck. That former congressman from Friendswood however...
I still find the completely dismissive denigration of J.C. Watts, on the basis of his skin color, by our supposedly progressive posters to be really odd. You guys realize that what you're saying is, "He only got (elected) because he's black!" right...? That you're completely dismissing the idea that his intelligence, candor, and diligence were responsible for his election and instead insisting he could only have accomplished what he did as the result of a token gift rather than as the fruit of his own labor...? Would you call that charge anything other than racism if it were leveled by a conservative at a liberal black? Someone who rises up, ahead of many others more qualified, Who? Who do you think was more qualified than Watts? What evidence do you have that he was less qualified other than your own assumption that a black man in that position must be less qualified, that surely they could have found a white guy for the job....? I apologize for not monitoring the BBS to respond to all of your threads quickly. I will quit my job, dump my girlfriend, and sell my guitar immediately, so that I will have adequate time to respond to your posts. And RM95: I have no clue as to what your post meant. You've heard worse, so it's OK to post bigoted slander against Watts...? Should we also take the n-word off the profanity filter, too? I mean, I've heard stupid ass rednecks use it before in extremely vitriolic ways. Maybe we shouldn't worry about it.
No, I didn't say that. I also didn't say it was right. It's not. I merely gave a possible reason as to why no one's responded like you wanted.
Unreal. You don't have to be in "an empowered situation" to be a racist. Words have meanings, and you can't change those meanings to fit your political bias. Using your definition, Louis Farrakhan was not being a racist when he referred to Jews as "bloodsuckers". Think about that example and try to defend your position.
Actually, your example fits my definition pretty well. When Farrakhan uses his position as a leader of a particular community (the Nation of Islam in this case) to convince the members of the community that a particular ethnicity (Jews in this case) is inherently evil or inferior, that's racism. BTW, it's also stupid, so please don't insinuate that I would justify Farrakhan's remarks. When somebody calls John Ashcroft a redneck, that's not racism. Are you going to dispute this?
Brian, I said earlier in this thread that I wasn't talking about Watts being elected -- I was talking about his meteoric rise to a top level Congressional leadership position -- one that is ordinarily reserved for tenured Congressmen. It's really not a terribly controversial position that he was promoted ahead of other more experienced members due to a form of affirmative action. I actually don't see how this denegrates him. The fact that someone benefits from affirmative action doesn't mean he isn't qualified for the job. Powell is a great example, there are many such examples and I never said Watts wasn't one. And I wasn't suggesting that you should respond more quickly. I was asking, if it WAS such a controversial position, why several other posters hadn't responded to it (when they were responding to other points I'd made) and why you, when you did respond, didn't say why it bothered you. I understand now that you thought I was talking about his being elected and maybe therein lies the confusion. I'm sure you've also got a problem with my suggestion that his race played a part in his quick rise to the number 3 guy in Congress. I can't help you with that. It was not a coincidence that Clarence Thomas was tapped to replace Marshall either. By that I don't intend to question his experience or qualification -- only that decisions ARE made at times due at least in part to race, that that is a form of affirmative action and that the Republican Party practices it on occasion, whether they support the official program or not.
Batman, I agree. Nobody has answered the question about why Colin Powel or Rice aid the Bush administration by being in the Bush government. Madmax at least posits that Powel agrees with their overall policies on more issues than not. Maybe so. Batman, I think you perhaps have the answer with the military angle. Some of the most moderate Republicans I personally know are ex career military men. They just seem to have to think of themselves as Republicans, though they disagree with the party on many issues, in which there is othewise virtual unanimity. Since 95% of African Americans don't agree that the overall policies of the Bush Administration are in the favor of African Americans, Harry Belafonte is right to question why Powell as an African American does. I agree the slave rhetoric was way overboard. I also think it is insultin to think that the 95% of blacks who vote for the deomcratric party are so stupid that they don't realize what party is in their interest. It is way too simplistic to try to say that the only policy of the Bush administration that doesn't agree with African Americans is afirmative action. Try social spending, education spending, national health care, tax cuts for the wealthy and othe major issues. Powell, it must be pointed out, had a chance to defend his involvement in the Bush administration and chose to respond to Belafonte on a similar nonproductive personal level. Even at the convention where he cited his support for affirmative action, which the GOP generally oppose, did he ever say what aspects of the GOP he prefers? Such silence does open him up to charges of opportunism. Batman is 100% correct that although qualified, since he was an elected US representative, J.C. Watts was jumped over roughly 150 just as qualified white people to that position because of his race. Anyone who denies that has no credibility. Even if you hate affirmative action, why not admit that this was done to make the Republican Party more saleable to Blacks? Auto companies and soap sellers also use Black faces on billboards in African American neighborhoods. Is that affirmative action? 71% vs 19% oppose of blacks support affirmative action. blacks BTW it is wrong that African Americans are split 50-50 on affirmative action. Where's your proof, Freak?
First of all, I have said nothing to insinuate that you would justify anybody's remarks, so don't get paranoid. Test #2- A poor man from Mexico, who lives in the street, wears tattered clothes, and has no money utters the statement, "all blacks are criminals". Is he racist?
What an ignorant thing to write. Powell is respected the world over, and is a force as a statesman for the United States. Rice, as a leading foreign policy analyst specializing in U.S./Soviet relations (she is fluent in Russian), easily earned her spot at the table. You should learn more about these people before you insult them based on their race. I have read through this thread again, and nobody ever insinuated what you are charging. The above paragraph is VERY poor form on your part. Wrong! The majority of black families favor school vouchers, just as one example. Do you read the newpaper much? Wait, you don't read the newspaper. At least, if you would have listened to his speech at Republican convention, you wouldn't ask such stupid questions. I am inclined to think that you are here to provoke, not to argue.
The day you're the one who sets the terms for credibility around here is the day it's a BBS with three members, glynch. You guys are making very logical arguments for why Watts' appointment looks like it was simply a racial gambit. How would you feel if I replied to that by simply saying, "Well, you're a racist! That's racist to say that about Watts!"....?
glynch's post hits right to the heart of the matter. When an African-American chooses to become a Republican it couldn't be that he simply has a different overall world view. Oh no...something must be "wrong" and we have to find out why. That is labelling people simply based on the color of their skin. And as much as the Dems would like to decry racial profiling...this is profiling people politically based solely on their race. glynch...you throw around "statistics without citing any studys or polls. Where do you get your information? Personally I believe that you are making it up.
I would say that I don't consider any form of affirmative action to be a gambit. I consider it to be a correction. And I don't have any problem with the Republicans practicing it -- I have a problem with them selectively practicing it and simultaneously opposing it. As for how I would respond to you saying "Well, you're a racist!" I would respond by saying, "Well, you're simple!" Again, I don't have any problem with race being a factor in Watts' quick promotion. I'm FOR affirmative action.
