You’re talking about a different type of person than someone who would go around calling themselves “Latins for Trump”, though. Cuz clearly a group by that name has no problem because categorized demographically.
The black guy in the video I linked to doesn’t seem to be whom you’re talking about either. He seems sensitive enough to his minority status to feel targeted by Trump’s rhetoric, which suggests a fairly developed racial identity. If I had to diagnose his problem, I’d say it’s extreme naïveté plus a failure to think critically. A lack of historical perspective is probably in play as well. It’s takes a few mental cogs to realize that a pattern of racist actions + white nationalist supporters clamoring for even more racism + zero attempts to reach out to minorities = a POTUS who is being quite intentional in fomenting hate and discrimination against you and your skin folk. But if you listen to the guy speak, you get the sense he hasn’t reached this logical conclusion yet because he’s holding on to hope that Trump doesn’t know what he’s doing. Which explains his earnest appeal.
John Lewis or some other Civil Rights veteran needs to give him an intervention.
That’s a good point — I wonder if my real estate acquaintance would want to be publicly associated with anything called “Latinos for…”. I suspect she would, actually…after all, we met at a benefit for international students. I think many Republican Latinos are fine with being considered Latinos, and some likely enjoy showing how they defy the expectations of many. As if to say “You’re going to label me as Latino anyway (due to my name and looks, and for many, Spanish accent), but I’ll take this opportunity to show you that we’re not all dirty, desperate poor folk. Many of us are upstanding middle-class American citizens benefiting from the current economy — Trump supporters, even, just like our white neighbors in the suburbs of Milwaukee!” (I’m referencing that Nate Cohn article in yesterday’s New York Times).
Asahi, I wouldn’t bet against light-skinned, assimilated Latinos eventually identifying as white, and being accepted as such by most other whites. Just like what happened with Italian-Americans. If that happens, we could find ourselves right back where we are now in fifty years.
We’re all going through a sort of living-history lesson, these days!
Yes, good point. I can understand that it’s seemed more imperative to fight the “impeach = remove from office” misconception that’s rampant out there. But, true enough that some discussions could leave the impression that removal isn’t legally possible.
Yup, this sort of thing keeps coming around in circles, just often picking on a different group the next time around – and all too often with the enthusiastic cooperation of many members of whatever group was targeted on the previous round.
People can know that they are Black or Latino or whatever and choose not to be associated or identify with the conventional notions of “Blackness” or “Latino-ness”. Clarence Thomas is a Black man. He would probably straight up tell you he is a Black man. He would probably tell you straight up he has been called “n—er.” Where he may differ from other Black men is that he believes he can overcome these obstacles by fighting to be accepted by White America through cultural mimicry (maybe that’s sloppy terminology on my part, but whatever you want to call it).
Discrimination presents its victims with choices, but these choices aren’t necessarily simple or easy to make. Perhaps Thomas believed that he had opportunities to close social and cultural distance between himself and White America, and perhaps many Black Americans don’t see themselves as having that opportunity. Maybe Thomas knew people. Maybe he knew people through his family connections - or maybe he understood how to make those connections himself at an early age and honed his craft as he got older. The point is, this is complex stuff we’re talking about here.
Cynically, I look at someone like Clarence Thomas and I will confess: I sometimes view him as an Uncle Tom. But I simultaneously acknowledge it’s not really my place to make that judgment. He’s just as Black as Muhammad Ali. For whatever reasons, they just made different choices and I suspect many of those choices they made were based on their early experiences, and one experience and one outcome leads to others, which can lead two people with seemingly similar characteristics down entirely different paths and lead them to entirely different identities.
Yes, but it’s unlikely that a Clarence Thomas type is going to affiliate himself with a group known as “Black” anything. I mean, seriously, if you’re not a minority you need to trust me on this. I’m not arguing that they don’t think they defy conventional notions of “blackness” or whatever. I’m just saying that the much more likely scenario is that they will actively distance themselves from any group that calls attention to race or ethnicity.
Yes, and the Democratic candidate gets to bring up the high crimes and/or misdemeanor committing, lying buffoon that is the current president, supported by info that comes out in the trial, and gets to excoriate the gutless Republican cowards in the Senate who voted to acquit, despite all the evidence laid out in the trial, to which the voting public will be made aware, thereby contributing to a Trump loss, and maybe even making a pickup or two in the Senate a bit more likely.
The emphasized (by me) phrases are particularly divorced from those facts. Why do you believe Mitch McConnell will provide a trial in which “all the evidence” will be “laid out”?
I think I remember you making this type of argument before. If so, I know there is nothing I can say at this late date to try and dissuade you from making it now. But for the record, I believe that even Mitch McConnell would not go so far as to try and prevent a Senate trial. So, if you like, of course, would you at least assume he would let it happen, and then tell me if you then think my scenario is a plausible one?
Oh, and exactly what “facts” are you referring to?
^ That’s my point: Mitch McConnell is the guy who says when the trial will start. He’ll just not start one. If the trial never starts, the Chief Justice never presides over it.
Yes, that’s a possibility. Or McConnell could tell the House managers that they can have the hour between 4 and 5am on Sunday/Monday night to make their case, and then the full Senate will vote at 9am on that Monday.
I for one got your point about who schedules it. I just think McConnell wouldn’t not schedule the trial. Why take a chance on riling up some otherwise non voters when the Senate will surely vote not to convict?
We’re all going through a sort of living-history lesson, these days!