More examples of the difference in our usage of these words. Here are some examples in my opinion and usage:
Racist (but NOT white supremacist): “I’m going to welcome my new black neighbors with some hip-hop music, some fried chicken, and some watermelon!”
White supremacist (but NOT neo-Nazi/Nazi): “I don’t like that my new neighbors are black and I’d prefer if they left, and I may vote for policies that reduce the chances of more black people in my neighborhood.”
Neo-Nazi/Nazi: “I’m going to take violent and threatening action so that my new black neighbors want to move away from this neighborhood.”
And it can get even worse, obviously – from threats to deadly violence.
I think Reagan’s words in the OP fall squarely into the 2nd category.
So any theories as to why the two sets of facts are in contradiction? I tried to reconcile the contradiction in the previous post. To repeat: *Some of the things you’re citing there seem to overlook the balance Reagan was trying to achieve between what he saw as the threat of communism in SA vs. supporting the apartheid regime, and others are just citing the unprincipled actions of the GOP, who were racist hypocrites then much as they are today. *
In any case, my original and primary argument isn’t about whether Reagan was a racist, as he probably was, at least by today’s standards. It’s that there’s no evidence he was a white supremacist. The apartheid regime certainly was, but to the extent that Reagan’s policies sometimes seemed supportive, there were non-racist political reasons for them, as misguided as they may have been.
I’m realizing that, as contemptible as I find the time-honored tradition of hijacking conversations about bigotry with fussy pedantic bickering over definitions, I’m aiding in the distraction by engaging with you. I need to knock that shit off, so I’m done with you on this contemptible practice.
I see. So you believe that it’s “contemptible” to insist that words actually have meaning. But it’s not contemptible at all – in fact, perfectly OK – to accuse someone of being a white supremacist – in effect, a murderous neo-Nazi of the kind that appeared in Charlottesville in 2017 bearing swastikas and Nazi and Confederate flags – just because that someone called a black person a derogatory name?
And you justify this by choosing to define “white supremacist” in your own special way, which as others have noted, is not the way it’s used in the English language as spoken today. OK, fine, but that remarkable attitude defeats the purpose of language and all semblance of logic and makes it impossible to have meaningful conversations about racism.
I think this is where you are incorrect. Your first example is not racist at all. It is likely ignorant and culturally unaware, but do you have a cite that such behavior is racist?
Your second category is what I would call “racist.”
I think there is some definitional creep in your chosen definitions.
Did you wake up and take conservative pills this morning?
Racism implies a believe in a superiority or higher status of one’s own race. If I think blacks are dumber than whites, that is racism. If I serve my Italian guests pasta, or my UK guest a shepherd’s pie on the culturally unaware belief that those people always like certain foods, I don’t hate them nor am I “racist” towards them. That’s silly. That deprives the word of any meaning.
Your side is doing the bait and switch here. Applying new definitions to words that have a previously understood different meaning and using the new definition which implies harsher behavior to the person the label is applied to.
No this is not true. You are redefining the term. Making assumptions about people based only on the color of their skin is racism. Your side is trying to make that ok by redefining racism so narrowly that you can claim almost anything said isn’t racist unless an actual slur is used. I’m using the term the way it has always been used. What the right is doing is what is new. “Go back to where you came from” is obviously racist, but they are trying to find a way to defend stuff like that by reducing the term racist to mean only what they want it to be and then howling about how everything is racist these days. No, racist stuff is and always has been racist, and will continue to be so.
Who said anything about hate? I think the hypothetical hip hop, watermelon and fried chicken neighbor is probably a nice guy trying to be friendly to his new neighbors, but racists can be nice and friendly, even to black people. If you think racism requires hate, then you’re missing the vast majority of racist interactions that result in harm to children.
Just IMHO, but I think that the difference between racism and white supremacy is that of belief versus action. A racist believes that his race is better than other races, but a supremacist actually does things to hurt other races. In other words, white supremacy is applied racism.
I agree with immediately previous poster there’s definition creep there as one problem. The first example is somebody stereotyping, it’s not even ‘[racially] prejudiced’ or ‘racially biased’ which is what the second example would have been called not long ago. ‘Racist’ not that long ago could be interpreted to mean close to the same thing as ‘white supremacist’, belief in a social order based on ranking races, because one was categorically superior to others, WS makes explicit which one. But in recent years ‘racist’ has been applied more and more loosely and sloppily to cases which are really just racial prejudice. So now WS is being invoked to mean what ‘racist’ used to. But it needs to have the element of belief about social policy or organization.
Conscious insults based on race (Reagan recording) are an example of racial prejudice. It isn’t a stretch in sloppy modern English usage to call it ‘racist’. But trying to call it ‘white supremacist’ is just making things more confusing, whether the definition has been changed, or it’s a reference to theorizing by Reagan about the proper social order that’s not explicit in the comments which have been publicized. The meaning of ‘racism’ has become distorted, but that it isn’t a good reason to keep distorting new terms.
IOW this thread is misnamed: the comments were racially biased, or by common sloppy current usage ‘racist’, but not ‘white supremacist’ as far as any evidence on that tape. It doesn’t make the comments acceptable of course.
And besides definition creep, there is no particular gradation between ‘white supremacist’ and ‘neo Nazi’ on a scale of views toward black people. The Nazi’s themselves believed in the superiority of ‘Aryans’ from whom they excluded many basically ‘white’ groups and committed the great majority of their atrocities against those groups (European Jews, Slavic peoples, Roma, etc). In terms of their actual crimes, 1930’s-40’s Nazi views of people of Sub-Saharan African descent were a relative footnote*.
To the limited extent true neo-Nazi’s actually exist now they have a variety of views which might or might not be focused on blacks, depending which country the neo-Nazi’s live among other things. There’s no valid basis to make ‘neo-Nazi’ a hash mark on a scale of hostility to blacks, or a distinct theory of how society should be organized as compared to white supremacists.
*the German Army captured thousands of Senegalese soldiers of the French Army in the 1940 campaign. Hundreds of them were murdered at random, but most were treated more or less in accordance with the Geneva Conventions as Western Allied prisoners usually were by the Germans, but Soviet prisoners seldom were.
I agree with wolfpup- at this rate, we are robbing words of any and all meaning.
If my neighbor thinks that white people should have power over people of any other color, would be downright OFFENDED at the very idea of even the “lowliest” of white men having to work for/report to a colored supervisor… that dude is obviously a white supremacist. He believes that the natural order of things should have white people at the top of the hierarchy.
If my other neighbor thinks that blacks are lazy violent thugs, and obviously like to live that way because they are all staying in the ghettos instead of just packing up and moving away, he’s just a garden variety racist.
They are both shitheads, but there is definitely a difference between the two.
Neighbor B might even cheerfully report to a black supervisor, spend his after work time with a Mexican coworker, and think that they are the exception to his stereotyped views… he is still racist, but doesn’t necessarily believe he has some inherent right to dominate those of a different color, unlike Neighbor A.
I agree with this. But if he is so inept that he thinks he is doing a nice thing by bringing his Mexican friend tacos for lunch, that fact alone does not make him a racist.
No, it means assuming a person has particular attributes based solely on their apparent race. That can be, “Blacks are dumb.” It can also be, “Asians are good at math.”
This is hardly a “new” definition. “Black people like fried chicken and watermelon,” has been considered a racist trope for as long as I’ve been alive.
Once again I’m in the very uncomfortable position of seeming to defend Reagan in the interest of fairness in this specific case. But this doesn’t actually tell us anything about how he would regard educated African-Americans, because one presumes that he thought the UN delegates from these underdeveloped countries were a product of their putatively “primitive” culture. If Reagan thought African-Americans were no better than “monkeys”, why did he appoint Edward Perkins as the first black ambassador to South Africa, which totally enraged the apartheid government over there at the time?
Furthermore, I would suggest the even the highest level diplomats and leaders from backwards countries can and do reflect the prevailing and often barbaric culture – cite.
We’re not necessarily objecting to your definition or description above, but…
I know you’re attempting to argue that someone can be a racist and yet not explicitly subscribe to racist ideology, but that is truly a distinction without a difference. Racism is the belief that members of another race are somehow inferior to members of the race one identifies with. And if someone is racist and white, then it follows that their racism is the inherent belief in the supremacy of the white race. This still allows for calibrating of such attitudes toward different ethnic groups. A white supremacist can on one hand be vehemently racist toward Black people and less so toward Asians, or vice versa provided that he/she ultimately believes in the superiority of the white race. Some specific examples are admittedly more complicated to “litigate” socially and politically.
The handful of times that Reagan did anything seemingly in recognition of African Americans it was to get them to shut up. He opposed the Martin Luther King Jr holiday, even going so far as to write the New Hampshire governor an apology letter for signing it into law.
If you’re uncomfortable defending Reagan’s language, maybe you can, you know, stop defending it. The language released in the recording with Nixon is pretty consistent with Reagan’s rhetoric and political activity throughout his entire life.
