As someone who came of age in the US of the 1930s, is there anyone here who doesn’t think Reagan was a racist for most of his life?
I’m not trying to say he was a racist in the White House, nor that he instituted racist policies, nor that his supporters were racist. But it’s a fact that most people born in the US in 1911 grew up to be racists. Right?
And you are saying that he was too stupid to realize that the image he was conveying one that denigrated black people? (He did not so much “use” the story as make it up. He told multiple variations of the tale, getting his details wrong in every one of them.)
The majority of people in the U.S. believed, for years, that the majority of people on Welfare were black. Using large cities as the scenario for his various tales reinforced the idea that it was black people in the cities who were simply living off the dole–ignoring the fact, completely, that the actual woman about whom he was inventing his tales was a rural white woman. He also used a story about a woman who had committed enormous fraud and had been caught to suggest that hundreds of thousands of people in the inner cities were living lives of luxury on Welfare and getting away with it.
His actions were part and parcel of the racist Republican strategy. He might not have actively chosen to push racism, but he did nothing to disassociate his words from the racism that underlay his tales.
It pretty much had no other meaning between 1948 or so and the late 1990s when a different set of issues surrounding Federalism arose.
It would be interesting to see a quote from 1970, 1975, or 1980 using “States Rights” that did not involve Civil Rights. Using that phrase when it was so deeply entrenched in the language was nothing more than a code word. When issues arose such as the Feds setting a 55 m.p.h. speed limit or mandating a drinking age of 18 tied to Federal funding for highways, the opposition did not use “States Rights” to oppose it as they knew that the phrase was involved with Civil Rights.
Claiming that the use of that phrase in 1980 was, in some way, not a code word against Civil Rights is either utterly naive or completely disingenuous.
I’m from Illinois. I was eighteen at the time Reagan was running for office. Believe me when I tell you that “we” knew who Reagan was talking about when he talked about welfare queens. Just like we all " knew" a friend of a friend who was at the grocery store and saw the black lady with a cart full of steaks who paid for them with food stamps. Afterwards she loaded them in her brand new Cadillac and drove off.
I’m so glad I am old enough now to know racist claptrap when I hear it.
Cite that she was rural? The Slate article refers to her living in Chicago.
Reagan never actually said “welfare queen”, though. If your contemporaries assumed anyone on welfare, or defrauding welfare, was black, that’s on you, not Reagan.
And a drive through Eastern Kentucky would quickly disabuse you of those notions.
Depends on the context.
But if Reagan knew the code word and its effect, and deliberately used it for that effect, that’s on him (I’m not saying he did).
We’re not saying the racial stereotype was true, just that they existed in the minds of many people.
Does that mean you were a racist?
That’s a fair standard, sure.
I guess that’s a barrier to my understanding here, since I associate government assistance with poor, rural, white people.
But come on - saying “reduce crime” is always a dogwhistle? That’s absurd.
But we can also reject it. For instance, maybe a few people think “reduce crime” is a racial codeword, but most people probably find that to be nonsense. It probably is only a codeword in a specific context. It’s perfectly reasonable to want to reduce crime.
We can’t just let racists dictate everything we say. And we sure as hell shouldn’t be held responsible for it. If someone says “we should reduce crime” and someone asks if they are using a racist codeword and they say no, and there’s no good reason to think they are, that should be the end of it.
When someone says “reduce crime” with no racial intention, and you hear a racial angle, who is the one who is connecting blacks with crime? Isn’t seeing the codeword, in the absence of any other reason to suspect it, the racist thought? You don’t actually buy into the idea that reducing crime is a racial issue that requires attacks on blacks - you’re not a racist either. So when the speaker isn’t racist, and you’re not a racist, seeing codewords that aren’t there only perpetuates their power. Better to kill the codeword by refusing to allow it to be one any more.
Again, you are making the mistake of assuming that other people are as enlightened as you are.
It’s absurd to use “always” in that sentence. :dubious: Context, dude, context.
Given the history, how do you *know *the intent is non-racial? Context.
Annndddd … there’s the old “You anti-racists are the real racists!” line. About time, too.
But do they?
Hint: No.
It’s his argument, not mine.
Of course. So it’s not “always.”
Nope, not my argument. Please have the respect not to misconstrue my words.
I’m saying that by seeing racism where it no longer exists, you end up perpetuating it. If you really want to be anti-racist, don’t bow to the racists who declared that “crime” = “black people.” Deny them the power over the language you use.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that I came of age in the 1930s. Reagan did. But my parents and grandparents, who were born 20 to 50 years after Reagan was, were at least somewhat racist. And this was in suburban Illinois, not Birmingham, Alabama.
Is there any reason to think Reagan was more enlightened than the rest of his generation?
Is there any reason to believe he wasn’t?
You can’t just say “everyone was racist back then.” That’s both completely unfair and untrue.
There’s reason to think Reagan was less *aware *than most of the rest of his generation. That’s the only way to excuse his making a speech defending “states’ rights” at the place where Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney were murdered.
lance, if you choose to use words that you know are often construed negatively instead of others, without immediate explanation or clarification, then you have no right to be surprised or offended when they *are *construed negatively.
I didn’t say that.
I’m not sure what this means – Republican politicians really did deliberately plan and execute actions designed to appeal to Southern white racists (just as Democratic politicians did for a century before) – but at least you’re acknowledging its existence.
I think the big disconnect here might be an understanding of how racist Southern white people really were (on average) at the time of Civil Rights. From my understanding, before the Civil Rights movement a significant majority (75% or more) of Southern white people either supported racist and oppressive laws like Jim Crow or were indifferent (and tolerant) to them. Does anyone know any polling from back then?
You’re demanding that code words be reclaimed, as if there were no others available to use instead, as if they had innocent origins that got hijacked along the way and deserve to be reclaimed. Well, guess what, “states’ rights” meant slavery right from the beginning, and has meant the successors to slavery ever since. There is no innocent meaning to be reclaimed. Same for urban, ghetto, thuggish, certainly the n-word itself, among many other words mentioned in this thread.
If there is *no *innocent meaning available for a code word that you can explain readily, then the audience is entitled to draw an inference that you mean something you might not even be aware of yourself. Only through their forbearance would that inference be that you’re merely ignorant or callous.