These debates make no sense. First of all, the Tea Party isn’t running for anything, Herman Cain is. So if racism is your concern, you should be concerned with whether Herman Cain is a racist, not with whether some or most people in the Tea Party are. If you think Cain is racist, and that’s the most important issue to you, then don’t vote for him. If you think I shouldn’t vote for him, persuade me not to. But arguing that he or some of his supporters satisfy some definition of racism that I probably don’t agree with isn’t going to be very persuasive.
Any claim that the Republican Party fosters racism was settled long ago when Clarence Thomas was nominated for the Supreme Court.
And since “Impeach Clarence Thomas” is not a rallying cry of the Tea Party, that proves it isn’t racist.
C’mon people, let’s move on here.
(emphasis added)
You cannot mean this literally, so I take you to mean that such claims are impossible to definitively prove or disprove. But impossibility of definitive proof would rule out most of the claims people make in GD, yourself included. Are these kinds of claims really qualitatively different?
The motivations of individuals or groups are not unknowable or somehow not amenable to evidence. They just rightly fall into the category in which we should maintain some humility about our beliefs since they are formed with less-than-scientific rigor.
I don’t think you can find fault in people for claiming the Tea Party is racist and being unwilling to set out how you could falsify their claim. In a complex world, in order to not be paralyzed by inaction and non-judgment, we have to form beliefs about all kinds of issues on which our only guide is experience, anecdote, and circumstantial evidence. We all do it.
I apologize, I worded that inversely. Remove one of the 'not’s. It isn’t that difficult.
Yes, I agree there is no shortage of people making the statement, “The Tea Party is racist”. Those people either don’t mean that, or are stupid enough to attribute human characteristics to politcal party-ish organizations. But disproving them simply requires an explanation of the logical inconsistency of their statement.
With reference to *its first choice, or preferred *candidate.
I asked essentially the same thing of him upthread. I’m not expecting an answer.
It’s not possible to answer the question with a reasonable opinion based on the information supplied. Do you consider ‘Mexicans’ to belong to a race? How do you identify ‘Anglo haters’? And are you assuming that ‘hate’ is a necessary component of racism?
Here’s the original exchange:
[QUOTE=magellan01]
[QUOTE=Lobohan]
Is hating Mexicans racist in your opinion?
[/QUOTE]
Is hating anti-American groups that happen to be Mexican racist in your opinion?
[/QUOTE]
His question was answerable, proven by the fact that Bricker answered it. Mine is even easier to answer. Perhaps you have an opinion.
Perhaps you can list some major groups that are “anti-American” and Mexican.
I’m not really familiar with any though obviously many whites are terrified that the evil brown Latinos are out to get them.
I’d wager it’s more likely the Tea Partiers are Islamo-phobes, not racists.
Eh, I suppose some of the rebel groups in Chiapas or Oaxaca might be anti-American, but they aren’t any sort of realistic threat to the US, nor are many Americans even aware they exist.
Even racists recognize the usefulness of an Uncle Tom when they see one.
It is also racist to assume a black man cannot hold heterodox beliefs without it being an effort at servility.
Sure, most notoriously there’s MEChA. They call the southwestern US “Aztlan” and consider the term Mexican-American to be degrading because it implies they are part American.
“We are Chicanas and Chicanos of Aztlán reclaiming the land of our birth (Chicana/Chicano Nation); 2) Aztlán belongs to indigenous people, who are sovereign and not subject to a foreign culture; 3) We are a union of free pueblos forming a bronze (Chicana/Chicano) Nation; 4) Chicano nationalism, as the key to mobilization and organization, is the common denominator to bring consensus to the Chicana/Chicano Movement; 5) Cultural values strengthen our identity as La Familia de La Raza; and 6) EPA, as a basic plan of Chicana/Chicano liberation, sought the formation of an independent national political party that would represent the…” blah, blah blah, this stuff writes itself.
They have chapters at high schools and colleges all over; lots of Latino politicians were/are members.
Here’s an interesting article on the subject from the Christian Science Monitor" :
Bricker, your thesis neglects a dynamic that’s inherent to Herman Cain’s characteristics: his ability to act as a cover and a podium for racist and racially insensitive thoughts without tarring the rest of the (largely white) Republican party. Given that he’s gone on record in saying that “racism doesn’t hold anyone back in a big way” and that “racism is an excuse for them not being able to achieve what they want to achieve” and that he’s indicated that “2/3’s of blacks” that vote Democratic are “brainwashed” and that voting otherwise is proof that they’re finally “thinking for themselves”, and that he’s made light of slavery and its effects by comparing social security to it and laughing at the prospect of a racist’s great, great grandparents owning his great, great grandparents and that he’s openly stated that Obama is not a strong/real black man and thatObama’s “never been apart of the black experience”, I’m finding it difficult to conclude that supporting Herman Cain is evidence of a lack of racism.
Unless, of course, you think that a black person expressing these thoughts makes them effectively non-racist. In which case, I’ll direct you toward the views of another black person and see how strongly that assumption holds:
So all conservative blacks are Uncle Toms? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
How about this: the majority of the Tea Party is not racist, shocking isn’t it?
Yep, they are.
Sure is shocking. Also not true.
We have no objective evidence that suggests that.
That one is easy. Hate is not a necessary attribute of racism. So no, that is not racist.