Like Phil Ochs said “some of the best negroes are my friends”.
Damn, but you’re old!
Actually, “Some of our best negroes are friends”, but the idea is the same.
Tendencies like voting for Democrats at a rate of 90%? Why no, the blacks aren’t monolithic at all.
So in other words, you’re too stupid to understand my argument–which was about “groups you choose to be in” vs. “groups you are born into”. That’s fine, thanks for playing.
In terms of “the blacks” vs. “the enemies” or any other distinguishable group, what on earth does choosing to be in them vs. having no choice have to do with phraseology like “I have a very good relationship with the blacks” or “that’s just something the enemies say”? One is group whose members choose to be in it and the other is a group who has no choice, but they’re both identifiable groups and it’s not like the word “the” carries negative connotations of its own. Trump’s saying “the blacks” in this context is no different than his use of “the enemies” in identifing the group of people who spread the rumor he doesn’t like to shake hands. He merely uses the term to refer to a specific group of people.
The difference lies in the idea that “the blacks” have relatively few traits that unify them. If you’re talking about anything other than skin color, “the blacks” is probably not as unified a group as you are making it out to be.
Statements don’t have to have negative connotations for it to be prejudiced, after all. “The Blacks are good at sports” is a prejudiced statement, and the existence of Steve Urkel is evidence for why it’s wrong.
On the other hand, “The Catholics think the Pope is in charge of religious doctrine” is not nearly as problematic.
[slight hijack]Starving Artist, replace “the blacks” with “the blonds” or “the brown-eyed.” Even if there are statistics to show an inclination for those groups to vote one way or the other, those two groups are not automatically monolithic. Neither are “the blacks.”
I grew up around the blacks. I learned that the blacks are comprised of individuals. Some are fiscally conservative, some want to spend like liberals. Some are rich, some are poor. Some are great people, some are assholes.
You see, “birthers,” “tea-baggers,” and “the enemies” are groups that are identifiable by their beliefs, not their sunscreen SPF. Even if MOST of “the blacks” vote a certain way, that doesn’t mean “the blacks” all agree. If you’re a tea-bagger or a birther, that means you have a certain ideological agreement with ALlL other tea-baggers or birthers, regardless of race, creed, or skin-tone.[/sh]
I don’t agree that “Blacks are good at sports” is a prejudiced statement. Not at all. In fact, it’s the exact opposite of “prejudiced” - which means to “pre-judge”. Black people (in this country anyway, which is what most people who would make this kind of statement are familiar wiith) utterly dominate every sport they participate in. Acknowledgement of that is based on observation and experience, and not on what we would normally think of as prejudice, which generally means having a propensity to think negatively of someone because of their physical or racial characteristics. And I don’t think the argument that not all blacks are superior athletically holds much water either because we all speak in generalizations. Conversation in a practical sense would be very difficult without them. Everyone here speaks of “whites”, “liberals”, “conservatives”, “Tea Partiers” (or “Baggers”, if you prefer), “wing-nuts”, “tighty-righties”, and so forth all the time, and no one ever challenges these labels simply because not every single person belonging to those groups behaves identically. So why is it unique that in using language the way we’re all familiar with and engage in all the time, it suddenly becomes evidence of racism to apply these same general ways of speaking to blacks? To those of us not already inclined to think that way, it comes across as just looking for ways to call people racist that are neither accurate nor intellectually honest.
I think I answered most of your post just above, but let me say this with regard to what Trump said: Trump speaks in a kind of verbal shorthand that is made up of fragmented and incomplete sentences that are very effective at getting his point across with the minimum amount of words. He has done this when publicly speaking for decades, maybe all his life. He says just enough to get the idea across and then moves on to the next thought, which generally is only partially expressed as well. He says things like (in reference to his feud with Rosie O’Donnell, and in defense of his claims that she is stupid) “You know, I’m a smart guy…and in my job…well, let’s just say I know lots of smart people. And Rosie O’Donnell is…at best…at best!..of only average intelligence.” See? This one fragmented and incomplete remark says a lot in very few words. Trump doesn’t get into specifics and he doesn’t debate their relative intellectual accomplishments and he doesn’t go to a great deal of effort to explicate his justifications for what he’s saying. He simply says enough of a sentence fragment to get the idea across and then moves on to the next. It’s a clumsy-sounding but very effective way of speaking in terms of getting your point across quickly and without getting bogged down in details. And he does this all the time, whether he’s talking about Ed Koch or Barack Obama or opponents of his real estate developments or China or Libya or anything else. I’ve seen him on Oprah’s show and he does this even when speaking of his own family. He says just enough to get the point across and then moves on to the next one. In my opinion when he said he does very well with the blacks, he simply meant that a lot of black people respect him for his work ethic and accomplishments and that they hold him in high regard (even if, as is probably true, they don’t agree with his politics). I’m sure he’s gotten a lot of positive feedback from the black people he encounters in his life, and it is for this reason (in conjunction with his verbal shorthand) that, IMO, that he said he does very well with “the blacks”.
This Just In: Prejudiced old white male says his prejudiced comments are not prejudiced. Film at 11:00.
And in an update on breaking news, accusations previously made about a “prejudiced old white man” have proven to be largely unfounded…that is to say, he is white.
Further, as most of our viewers know by now, sixty is the new forty. 
And now here’s a hysterical weatherman with tonight’s forecast…
I have found, thus far, that a “prejudice” doesn’t have to assign a stereotypically bad attribute to be hurtful, harmful, or pernicious. “The whites are all rich” doesn’t come as much of a comfort to, well, most of my hometown. “The Asians are all good at math” doesn’t help the Japanese kid failing Algebra II. “The blacks are all good athletes” is unlikely to arouse good feelings in Fat Albert.
There is an element of choice in membership in all of those groups except for “whites”, which I’ve come down on people for generalizing about occasionally myself. It’s not as common in the kinds of threads I’m apt to read.
I don’t think it’s necessarily racist, upon reflection–as a negative prejudice might be–but it is evidence of something between “not aware how bad it sounds to some groups” and “outright rude”. Perhaps that makes me among “the politically-correct”.
I do have to admit, SA, I got a good chuckle out of your first post in this thread. Then you had to ruin it by, you know, actually participating.
:eek: I’m no expert, but I think this sentence just kicked it’s own ass.
Seriously. You just can’t say that something that is pre-judging a group of people based on skin tone is the exact opposite of prejudice and then reword and repeat the same prejudiced phrase. “Saying that jews are good with money is the exact opposite of prejudiced because everyone’s accountant is jewish.” Does that even make a bit of sense?
I’ve never wanted to be whooshed so bad in my life. Somebody tell me the quoted part was a whoosh.
You’ve made a subtle change in the nature of the dialog here that I doubt you’re even aware of, and that is your inclusion of the word “all” into the comments you posted. People don’t generally say “All blacks are good at sports” (although it’s a stereotype promoted even within the black community, ala “White Men Can’t Jump” and Diddy’s “You can’t outrun me - I’m black!” in Get Him to the Greek :D) They don’t say “all” Asians are good at math. Etc. And generally there is nothing to object to in such comments as they’re usually in regard to positive attributes. The only thing a person might find objectionable about them is that they set people of a certain race apart from others, but so what? Are we to abandon certain descriptors and ignore the evidence of our own eyes when it comes to racial characteristics? And if we are, why then the importance placed on multiculturalism? On the one hand we’re supposed to ignore racial differences, and on the other we’re supposed to honor and celebrate them. You can’t have one without the other. It’s like trying to imagine a coin with only one side. People are simply different. What we should be doing is promoting the belief that despite our cultural and physical differences we are all the same under the skin, rather than insisting that everyone pretend those differences don’t exist and then slinging insults at anyone who comments upon them, even when those comments are positive or complimentary.
And then let’s face it; a lot of this stuff depends on the political perception of the people saying it. I have no doubt that Joe Biden could say he had a great relationship with “the blacks” and the same people who are criticizing and insulting Donald Trump would be defending and offering benign explanations to excuse Biden. It is neither fair nor realistic nor logical to attempt to impose different standards of speech up people depending upon their politics - if for no other reason than what are the fence-sitters supposed to say. 
I’m sorry, but I still don’t see what that has to do with anything. If you belong to a group, you belong to it whether you chose to or not. I will admit that I can see how a black person might take offense at the use of the term “the blacks” just like I might take offense at the use of the term “the whites”. But then once it began to appear that this is perhaps just a regional or idiosyncratic way of speaking on the part of the person saying it, and that he’s used similar terms to describe other people in ways that have nothing to do with race, I would hope that that offense would begin to be mitigated and that the person saying it would therefore be given a pass.
In that case I would suggest that it is not always the people making the misperceived comment or observation who is at fault. Just because you’re a member of a minority group, it doesn’t necessarily mean that you can declare certain terms or ways of speaking off-limits. If they are deliberately hurtful, then yes, objecting to their usage is legitimate. But if the comments are innocent in point of fact and only offensive because the group in question (in this case, the PC crowd) had decided to interpret them that way, then objection to them and the practice of hurling insults at the person who said them is not only out of bounds, but manipulative and unfair (because it arbitrarily seeks to set language standards for people of different political beliefs, and because people not already members of the PC crowd may well be ignorant of how their comments will be perceived by those who are).
I’ve been away for years and I’ve got to say it’s wonderful to come back and see posts like this. Agree or not, you express your views very completely and intelligently. I thought I’d return to posts rife with sarcasm, insults, and other invective that serves no purpose other than to raise the temperature of the board. Excellent, thank you.
I’m torn between curiosity asking what kind of drugs you are on and the fear you might tell me.
Hi there; okay, so I hope my reply doesn’t cast me into the “knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing racists” category within which I don’t belong and of course I won’t waste anyone’s time trying to prove it, as that would convince nobody anyway.
First, a fact: Trump didn’t say anything about affirmative action when he brought this up.
Now, my opinion: He wasn’t implying that either. I do see how that can seem to be the (only) possible implication and I do think that it’s perfectly reasonable to assume that’s what he meant. (Incidentally, I also can see how others could be inclined to see it as a “wink wink” message to racists too. That’s often been said about, well, most everything that’s said by people that oppose someone popular who happens to be black but defending oneself against that falls into the “proving a negative” category, etc.)
I see it another way. I think Trump was either (or both) wanting to (1) cast doubt on the premise that Obama is a modern genius (this would tie together his comments both about his grades at Occidental and the authorship of his first book that Trump believes was authored by Ayers who he refers to as a ‘genius’) and/or (2) pointing out that there is something fishy about Obama’s background in general, including this (which I believe ties together with his birth certificate questions which had more to do with suspicions about something being fishy).
It’s actually ironic that affirmative action has been brought up by name (and not by Trump). Check this out:
“If Obama is elected next Tuesday, it will not be his first historic election. Obama was the first African-American to be elected President of the Harvard Law Review in 1990. Obama’s tenure as Law Review President was not without controversy. Indeed, an unusually low number of women were selected to be Review editors from the class of 1992, leading to considerable debate about the Law Review’s selection policies and the importance of its affirmative action program, which at the time, was limited to consideration of race and physical handicap.
Obama personally responded to the controversy by writing a lengthy letter explaining both the Review’s selection policy and his personal experience with affirmative action.” (emphasis added) http://www.hlrecord.org/2.4475/record-retrospective-obama-on-affirmative-action-1.577511?pagereq=1
(Ironically, given allegations of chauvinism/sexism against Obama during the campaign both for the (questionable) “lipstick on a pig” remark and including the (admittedly wrong) incident where he apologized for directing a sexist remark to a reporter, the controversy over the affirmative action policy had to do with the “unusually low number of women” selected during his tenure.)
And, finally, and I think most ironically given the charges against Trump, here is Obama expressly stating that he benefited from affirmative action programs during his education career!
“I must say, however, that as someone who has undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs during my academic career, and as someone who may have benefited from the Law Review’s affirmative action policy when I was selected to join the Review last year, I have not personally felt stigmatized either within the broader law school community or as a staff member of the Review.” (emphasis added) http://www.hlrecord.org/2.4475/record-retrospective-obama-on-affirmative-action-1.577511?pagereq=1
Not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course. I’ll let Barack have the last word:
“Indeed, my election last year as President of the Review would seem to indicate that at least among Review staff, and hopefully for the majority of professors at Harvard, affirmative action in no way tarnishes the accomplishments of those who are members of historically underrepresented groups.” http://www.hlrecord.org/2.4475/record-retrospective-obama-on-affirmative-action-1.577511?pagereq=1
sorry, double posting; I’m not sure how to delete this one?