He may sink a barb at a group and sound racist, call anyone who’s against gun ownership a pansy, or just snap at a reporter to ‘shut up!’ But my point is, he was so well-liked in general that most Americans then just shrugged it off as an unpleasant part of his job.
“Sound racist” is a weird characterization of using specific racist stereotypes as an insult, but at least you’re no longer arguing that what he said doesn’t sound racist, so thanks for that.
Pivoting to a totally new point? Okay, we’ll pivot. Maybe “most Americans” ignored it when he, uh, “sounded racist.” But you’ll note that black Americans voted against him in 1984 overwhelmingly.
White Americans have a long history of minimizing and excusing racist bullshit. This thread is my cite. It’s hardly surprising that in the eighties, white Americans might have by-and-large excused their president’s racism.
I like that last paragraph, and well, the Gipper died quite some time ago and discussions then aren’t what they are now. But other than that fast swerve I made about popularity (completely irrelevant, I know) I don’t believe it was racist. Just uncouth, for which he was famous. And he was even less of a supremacist. Recall my term, American Exceptionalism.
There are a few things wrong with this, LHoD, and I’m surprised you did them.
First off, seriously, ‘check your shit’? Try a little harder.
But the clearer violation here is the ‘You just made that up’. That’s perilously close to an accusation of lying. I can see an interpretation here that allows for making up a definition of ‘white supremacy’ but I’d prefer you avoid such things completely. It’s too open to a negative interpretation.
No warning, but rein it in from here on out. That goes for all of you.
It was, of course, the latter that I meant, as wolfpup acceded in his response:
It’s a little hard to figure out how to avoid looking like I’m accusing someone of lying, when it only looks like that to you, not to the person I’m talking with.
Rosalyn Carter said in an interview in the early 1980s that Ronald Reagan “made people feel comfortable with their prejudices,” so it’s not like people at the time didn’t realize what he was doing.
She nailed it. I thought he was supremely dangerous because he was so good at it. And tens of millions of his voters are still with us.
Sure, but there’s a world of difference between doing something insensitive with the intent of being accommodating or helpful (i.e. the chicken and watermelon), or merely ignorant/behind the times (i.e. old people using the word “negro”) and being… negatively racist, for lack of a better term.
They’re all strictly speaking, racist. But they’re not at all the same thing.
And there’s also a difference between making assumptions about individuals versus the group. I mean, if you were to say “suburban white men really like pro football, lawn care and home improvement/DIY stuff”, you’re probably not inaccurate. But if you were to say “Bump likes pro football, lawn care and home improvement/DIY stuff”, you’d be wrong on every count. Similarly, it can be said that the black community has serious problems with criminality without being racist, but you can’t say that any random black person is a criminal without being racist.
But you then go on to claim that this was all a deliberate attempt to “distract from some nasty bigotry” which made such a line of argument “suspicious”. But in fact when someone starts a thread claiming that a person was a “white supremacist” based on the evidence of a quoted statement, it definitely merits a discussion about what that term actually means. And as I and a number of others have pointed out, it doesn’t mean what you seem to think it does – it’s not just “nasty bigotry”. The term has a specific meaning consistently supported by many different sources, and those pointing that out are neither engaging in some kind of “suspicious” motivated “distraction” nor are they engaging in a “hijack” as you claimed in the rather remarkable and totally unjustified outburst in post #63. If the OP had cited the quote and said it showed Reagan was a racist, I doubt there would be much disagreement and I wouldn’t even be in this thread.
Here’s a clue for you then. When I lived in the Congo, 10 years before Reagan said his racist crap, a UN official called his African assistant a monkey - affectionately, so he claimed. It caused a massive outrage at the highest levels of government and the official got expelled. It’s not like that became a racist term just recently.
Reagan was either racist or stupid - and I never thought he was stupid.
I almost missed this. You’ve given no clear explanation for why it’s not a racist thing for him to say, so your lack of belief in its racism doesn’t appear to be founded in anything other than an affection for the Gipper.
I am trying to parse and understand this, but I cannot.
So, if I say that many members of a racial group have propensity X, then that is okay, no racism to see here.
But if I wrongly think that Dave, because he is a member of that racial group, likely has propensity X, then that is racist?
That seems backwards to me. In the first, I am talking about the racial group so any accusation of racism would have to lie there. In the second, I am only talking about Dave, one member of the group.
Why is it worse or “more racist” to impute things to a single member of a group, but okay to do it to the whole group?
As far as the Reagan comment, I think one of the things that people are missing is that in the not so recent past, certainly in 1971, when you wanted to insult someone, there was no filtering like there is today. I might love the French people, but if I’m mad at Billy the Frenchman, then everything comes out about Billy along with any French insults for good measure. Today, that is frowned upon.
Hell, I think Chris Rock did a routine on this.
“A lot of white people are white supremacists. Billy is white, so if he pisses me off for random reasons, I’ma call him a white supremacist.”
The first statement is 100% true. The second statement shows generalizations bleeding into unwarranted conclusions about an individual.
We’re not missing that. We think the filter is that now people try not to be racist when they insult people.
Well, some people try. Others don’t, because our leadership has set a terrible president.
What a serendipitous misspelling.
I’m still clueless. If I call a Filipino a monkey, will I be racist? How 'bout a Swede? And third party reactions, which is what your story is about, hardly matter to me.
People thought Reagan was stupid, or at least not up to the caliber of guys like Carter and Mondale. That I know.
sorry, that was Earl Butz (seriously, last name), not LBJ
I don’t think you’re clueless about why it’s widely accepted as racist to call black/brown people “monkeys”. You’re being disingenuous or worse, but not clueless.
He was well-liked by Republicans. But he wasn’t well-liked in general.
When he was elected many talked publicly about emigrating to Canada. Steve Martin included this in one of his SNL monologues:
A classic Doonesbury cartoon referenced Reagan’s ascent to power with conservative B.D. crowing about Reagan’s likely election, liberal Mark saying his reaction would be to shoot himself, and Mike Doonesbury replying “Good choice. Hand guns should be cheap and plentiful.” Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for August 25, 1980 - GoComics
Reagan was not even remotely popular with at least half the country. We hadn’t yet heard the way he apparently liked to talk about Africans, but we could, basically, guess that he’d be that kind of guy.
Some, sure. Or even just accepting it outright. But who among us posting in this thread is white? Since you are indirectly citing these people.
LHoD meant, as was implicit in his post, other white people.