Should we be surprised? Anyone want to take a crack at excusing or defending Reagan?
The hatefulness isn’t new. It’s just more out in the open with Trump. But it’s been there, in the mainstream of the Republican party (and elsewhere, of course), for half a century or more.
Just got done reading that, myself. It wasn’t a long quote but it was pretty clear.
Unfortunately it’s going to be easy enough for conservatives to ignore if not contort themselves to defend.
Nixon, however…damn.
I’ll try: “Everyone used to say that stuff. He was just being everyone.”
Nope. Doesn’t fly. But before I come across as ignoring racism from the Dems, it wouldn’t surprise me to hear a tape of, say, Richard J. Daley saying something similar.
That wouldn’t surprise me either.
I have no interest in defending Reagan or Nixon, but my issue is with your use of the term “white supremacist”. What that quote shows is that both men held racist views, which is a pretty broad continuum not at all equivalent to white supremacy. Using the term in such a loose fashion robs it of its real meaning, a reference to a heinously vile ideology comparable to neo-Nazism. For all his many faults, and his apparent racism, Reagan wasn’t a white supremacist.
I see it as pretty basic – by the words he used, Reagan pretty clearly seemed to believe that black people were inferior. There are forms of racism which do not necessarily imply or indicate belief in inferiority, but this seems clearly, IMO, to be an example in which it does.
But this is a semantics argument. I use harsher language because of how harmful I see this stuff as. Ronald Reagan had far more power than some idiot asshole Klanner who spent most of his time drinking beer in the basement complaining about minorities, even if that latter idiot is more explicitly white supremacist, and more in favor of direct harm and violence. Reagan harmed far more black people, in far worse ways, then the average contemporary Klanner. And it’s clear that he had some very hateful beliefs – I think it’s entirely fair to tie together that harm with those beliefs and call the total package “white supremacist”.
I think it’s because “racism” is itself thrown about so easily these days that “racist” doesn’t seem strong enough a word. However, most people think that they’re superior to “monkeys”, so I don’t think it’s that much of a stretch to call what he said in that particular instance white supremacist even if he wasn’t one overall.
Which illustrates a good reason not to throw around terms so loosely. But yes, the “monkeys” comment seems pretty incriminating at first glance. OTOH, a more charitable interpretation of those comments is that Reagan was extremely critical of what he saw as the undue influence in the UN of underdeveloped (i.e.- “backward” or “uncivilized”) African countries who were able to override the foreign policy goals of the US, and that this was the main target of his attacks. Now, I happen to think that Reagan was wrong about practically everything, including his disparagement of the UN, but nevertheless this appears to be what he was saying. Do you think Reagan would have referred to educated middle-class African-Americans as “monkeys”?
That’s not white supremacist in the least; it’s xenophobic, certainly. This is easily defensible; black people in the USA obviously are comfortable wearing shoes. I’m not even certain it’s intended to be hateful. I might say that I’m afraid of visiting New Guinea for fear of being eaten by cannibals. Hyperbole, pure and simple.
I think this quote indicates that there’s a high likelihood that he might have done so in private to a confidante that he thought shared the belief.
I will never vote for Ronald Reagan again!!!
Anyone else remember LBJ’s favorite saying about black Americans? (though he liked to use another word to refer to them) “All those n*****s want is a loose pair of shoes, a tight piece of ass and a warm place to take a shit.”
What the hell does “white supremacy” mean if not thinking that white people are better than non white people? This is a case where the plain meaning of the phrase is the most useful meaning of the phrase. Getting caught up in a semantic argument about how we mustn’t take the phrase literally is a distraction.
That points out the caution we should take with looking back decades into the past and applying today’s standards to them.
I mean, if you go back to the early 1980s, I don’t doubt you could find plenty of southern Democrats saying racially questionable stuff.
Hell, if you go back about 12 years, you get Joe Biden saying:
There’s not a lot of room for interpretation there- the implication is that black politicians prior to Obama were not articulate, bright, clean or good looking. And that was in 2007-2008.
My point is that while this definitely comes across as racist, Reagan was FAR from unique in 1971 in having or voicing those views among politicians of either party or the country at large.
A white man’s racism is synonymous with white supremacy. What else should we call it? Reagan’s racist rhetoric essentially compared Africans to sub-human savages – it was dehumanizing. But that’s not the worst of it; even worse is the fact that he convinced Nixon to take a position of using the vast political and economic influence of a largely white America to punish poorer and weaker African countries.
Let’s not forget that the modern use of the term “dog whistling” was introduced in response to Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign speech at the Neshoba County, Mississippi state fair, in which he championed state’s rights. Some have argued in the years since that it was just politics and winking at the Republican base, but this recording makes it clear that Reagan himself largely identified with the same kinds of white supremacists who murdered civil rights activists just down the road from where he spoke.
Applying today’s standards? Biden was raked through the fucking coals for saying that, AT THE TIME. It very nearly derailed his presidential campaign, AT THE TIME.
Instead, this anecdote points out the caution of thinking that everyone in the past was super-racist, so super-racist bullshit from the past should be handwaved away.
No. AT THE TIME, people were varied. Plenty of people knew some racist bullshit when it was spewed their way. The only difference is, today the people who recognize racist bullshit have a little more power than they had in the past.
It’s beyond absurd to compare Biden’s off-the-cuff remarks which in no way were intended to be harmful or racist. Was Joe Biden guilty of bias? Yes, but there’s little evidence of naked racism in those comments. Moreover, Biden had long since become a champion of civil rights. Reagan’s recorded comments now make it abundantly clear why he opposed the Civil Rights Act, why he opposed and essentially nullified California’s fair housing laws, and why he opposed the MLK Jr holiday, which he later signed into law but begrudgingly. In fact this article makes a good case that Reagan coopted King’s legacy as a way to advance “color-blind racism.”
Right. It’s like evaluating slave-owners in the 18th and 19th centuries – by the standards of the time, it was still evil. Not by the standards of the slave-owners, but by the standards of the slaves, or Ben Franklin, or other abolitionists. Lots and lots of Americans recognized how evil slavery was at the time.
I agree that we should not fall into the trap of engaging in literalism, yet that’s exactly what you appear to be doing in asserting a “plain meaning”. You simply cannot infer the meaning of an idiomatic expression from the literal meanings of its individual words. An “accessible entrance” is not the opposite of an “inaccessible entrance” that only birds can get into – it’s specifically a building entrance that accommodates disabled people. “Affordable housing” is not the opposite of housing that no one can afford, it’s low-income housing. And the term “white supremacist” does not refer to someone who merely thinks white people are superior to non-whites – that’s just plain run-of-the-mill racism; it refers to an entire hateful ideology closely related to neo-Nazism that seeks to establish the white race as the exclusive owners of political and social power.
The “hateful ideology related to neo-Naziism” you’re referring to wants to exterminate non-white people, unless I’m missing something. That’s pretty different – I don’t believe Reagan had any interest in exterminating non-white people. But based on this rhetoric, and other things he said and did (like his policy towards apartheid and South Africa), I think it’s pretty clear that he was comfortable with “the white raced as the exclusive [or perhaps near-exclusive/functionally exclusive] owners of political and social power”.
Now that you have told me that a man I never voted for and who has been dead for a long, long time was a racist, what exactly is it that you want me to do? IOW, how did you expect to influence the behavior of others by passing this along?