What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Reagan to Nixon: "those monkeys from African countries....they're still uncomfortable wearing shoes" (1 Viewer)

I think the biggest point in which I take issue with tommy is not the reassessment of Reagan (as I pointed out, I frequently run into this with all of my heroes from the past), but the notion that Donald Trump is part of a pattern of the GOP over several decades. I simply do not believe this. Trump is an anomaly, in his statements, beliefs, and attempted actions. He does not represent, in any sense, the historical mainstream of the modern Republican Party. 

 
I think the biggest point in which I take issue with tommy is not the reassessment of Reagan (as I pointed out, I frequently run into this with all of my heroes from the past), but the notion that Donald Trump is part of a pattern of the GOP over several decades. I simply do not believe this. Trump is an anomaly, in his statements, beliefs, and attempted actions. He does not represent, in any sense, the historical mainstream of the modern Republican Party. 
Of course Trump is an anomaly.  Tommy thinks he's cute and will convince the board that all of a sudden the Republican party is the evil one and his party is perfect with his hyperbole.  He's always been like that.

 
Here it is: 

I’m saddened to learn of this, just as I was saddened to learn of Winston Churchill’s racism (since Winston Churchill is the man of the 20th Century that I most admire.) Unlike Donald Trump, neither Reagan nor Nixon had a history of racist acts or statements; quite the opposite in fact. Both men publicly supported Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights movement. As governor of California Reagan was instrumental in helping to make “redlining” (housing districts restricted from black ownership) illegal, which his predecessor (the supposedly liberal Pat Brown, Jerry’s dad) failed to do. 

Its depressing to hear the way they talked behind the scenes. Part of it stems unfortunately from the period in which they were raised, but part of it is they are flawed human beings, not perfect. Yet I believe that Ronald Reagan was a good, well meaning man and not a racist. 

I strongly reject the notion that Reagan’s GOP was racist or compares in any way to the GOP of Trump. 


What about the Southern Strategy? Aren't you giving Nixon a pass by saying he had no history of racist acts?

 
I think the biggest point in which I take issue with tommy is not the reassessment of Reagan (as I pointed out, I frequently run into this with all of my heroes from the past), but the notion that Donald Trump is part of a pattern of the GOP over several decades. I simply do not believe this. Trump is an anomaly, in his statements, beliefs, and attempted actions. He does not represent, in any sense, the historical mainstream of the modern Republican Party. 
Go read history.

 
Go read history.
It’s my pastime. 

One of the most extensive studies of this very subject is Rick Perlstein’s two histories of the Nixon and Reagan eras. Yes, certainly racial resentment was part of the political strategy of both men but not central to either. 

 
The hopes of a post racial society which were on touted upon Obama's election, which were on life support after his Administration and the reactions thereto can now, seemingly, be eulogized.  Some malignancies are tougher to cure than may be hoped by the patient, this patient at any rate.

 
I think the biggest point in which I take issue with tommy is not the reassessment of Reagan (as I pointed out, I frequently run into this with all of my heroes from the past), but the notion that Donald Trump is part of a pattern of the GOP over several decades. I simply do not believe this. Trump is an anomaly, in his statements, beliefs, and attempted actions. He does not represent, in any sense, the historical mainstream of the modern Republican Party. 
I have found in life that most all heroes from all walks of life look good until they are put under a microscope. Then you start seeing some things that are not as appealing. Human beings are flawed, some can hide their flaws better than others.

 
What about the Southern Strategy? Aren't you giving Nixon a pass by saying he had no history of racist acts?
The Southern Strategy was not a racist act, it was a cynical move of political opportunity. But I’ve come to believe that it was less planned out than I previously supposed. 

Did Nixon take advantage of some coded racial resentment in 1968? Yes. But mainly he ran against the hippies and leftists. Reagan made some unfortunate comments about welfare queens in 1980 (and began his campaign in Mississippi) but mainly he ran against Carter and 70s malaise. In neither case did these two men run a campaign in anyway similar to Trump, and it’s really revisionist to suggest they did or to try to find a real link. 

 
It’s my pastime. 

One of the most extensive studies of this very subject is Rick Perlstein’s two histories of the Nixon and Reagan eras. Yes, certainly racial resentment was part of the political strategy of both men but not central to either. 
The US has a long, long history of covert racism that underlies political actions and voter support.  Reagan was absolutely within that historical arc.  

 
The Southern Strategy was not a racist act, it was a cynical move of political opportunity. But I’ve come to believe that it was less planned out than I previously supposed. 

Did Nixon take advantage of some coded racial resentment in 1968? Yes. But mainly he ran against the hippies and leftists. Reagan made some unfortunate comments about welfare queens in 1980 (and began his campaign in Mississippi) but mainly he ran against Carter and 70s malaise. In neither case did these two men run a campaign in anyway similar to Trump, and it’s really revisionist to suggest they did or to try to find a real link. 
Reagan didn't make "unfortunate comments."  It was a central part of his political calculus.  He used racial code language to rally the racist base.  Sound familiar?

 
LBJ was the worst IMO 

I find it incredible that people call Trump a racist when looking back on what was done and said ..... especially Democrats who literally were the face of slavery, KKK and Jim Crow days.

But that's what CNN reports, what DNC says on Trump and so people just believe

 
LBJ was the worst IMO 

I find it incredible that people call Trump a racist when looking back on what was done and said ..... especially Democrats who literally were the face of slavery, KKK and Jim Crow days.

But that's what CNN reports, what DNC says on Trump and so people just believe
Or maybe all of the above is true.  It's possible, you know, that Trump is a racist AND Democrats way back were the face of slavery/KKK/Jim Crow.  Those aren't mutually exclusive.

 
I think what truly is to blame for all the evil of all mine and your grandparents is the lack of innernets. They had no Footballguys Political  Forum to kneel before and seek Enlightenment from the morally transcendent beings here.

 
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/09/stone-mountain-kkk-white-supremacy-simmons/

This is Bill Clinton, campaigning in front of black men in chains about how great he is in terms of crime.  It goes without saying that this is bad.  This should not happen in the modern-day US (but it does, under Trump).  But let's not reach back multiple decades into the past to bad-ify folks who were normal for their time period.
Hold on.  Agree completely Clinton deserves everything he gets on this one -- it's even worse due to the sheer cynicism.

But it's still not something that the party thrived on for 50 years -- the Southern Strategy is an unbroken thread from the 60s to today in the GOP.  Especially in sub-statewide elections.

 
LBJ was the worst IMO 

I find it incredible that people call Trump a racist when looking back on what was done and said ..... especially Democrats who literally were the face of slavery, KKK and Jim Crow days.

But that's what CNN reports, what DNC says on Trump and so people just believe
156 years since the emancipation proclamation.  55 years since the Civil Rights Act.  At some point the positions of a Party or some of their members from generations ago fades into insignificance except as historical curiosity and potentially lesson.  When addressing current trends perhaps recent history is more instructive.   Complete irrelevancies, no, maybe not, but nearly so, those matters from prior to the mid 1800's and from mid century last century, I'm going to think probably so.  Times evolve.  The past is not an anchor, it is a lodestone at best.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
LBJ was the worst IMO 

I find it incredible that people call Trump a racist when looking back on what was done and said ..... especially Democrats who literally were the face of slavery, KKK and Jim Crow days.

But that's what CNN reports, what DNC says on Trump and so people just believe
I find it incredible you think this is either/or....its not, but that approach does give opportunity to deflect from the here and now.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's weird to see some in here equate talking about race with racism. Yeah, democrats talk about race a lot. Because it is important. Especially to many constituents who aren't white and don't have the privilege of going about their lives in a world where their race generally doesn't matter. 

In fact, for most people I know who aren't white, their racial background and cultural identity is important to them. With the small caveat that they just don't want to be discriminated against or hated for it. This idea mentioned by Ditkaless Wonders above (and none of the rest of this post is aimed at you, DW) of a "post racial society" is/was really only a thing white people are interested in, in my experience. Most people I know want to acknowledge and celebrate the differences between them, not ignore them because it's easier. Imo this idea of a world where we can ignore race all together was originally appealing only to people who couldn't afford to think any deeper on the topic of race lest they let in the bad racist thoughts--it had to become something that they didn't want to ackowledge at all, in an overcorrection. And it has evolved from there.

The talking point from some that Obama could have healed the racial divide but instead talked about race too much and caused a greater rift is insane imo. Both because it places too much responsibility onto one well-meaning man, and because it's cuckoo to think that one competent, performatively color-blind President of color would have made people realize the error of their ways. That's unrealistic. It wasn't his job to show racists that black people are okay. Look at this article in the OP--in the 70s we have powerful politicians discussing in terms of policy the powerful public sentiment that certain groups aren't civilized and can't govern themselves. Those people are still alive and in fact are the group that votes the most consistently. 

I shouldn't be surprised that for some here it's impossible to get more nuanced than "you said racism is bad, but you talk about race all the time". Mind-boggling. Race is important to democrats and republicans--for very different reasons. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's weird to see some in here equate talking about race with racism. Yeah, democrats talk about race a lot. Because it is important. Especially to many constituents who aren't white and don't have the privilege of going about their lives in a world where their race generally doesn't matter. 

In fact, for most people I know who aren't white, their racial background and cultural identity is important to them. With the small caveat that they just don't want to be discriminated against or hated for it. This idea mentioned by Ditkaless Wonders above (and none of the rest of this post is aimed at you, DW) of a "post racial society" is/was really only a thing white people are interested in, in my experience. Most people I know want to acknowledge and celebrate the differences between them, not ignore them because it's easier. Imo this idea of a world where we can ignore race all together was originally appealing only to people who couldn't afford to think any deeper on the topic of race lest they let in the bad racist thoughts--it had to become something that they didn't want to ackowledge at all, in an overcorrection. And it has evolved from there.

The talking point from some that Obama could have healed the racial divide but instead talked about race too much and caused a greater rift is insane imo. Both because it places too much responsibility onto one well-meaning man, and because it's cuckoo to think that one competent, performatively color-blind President of color would have made people realize the error of their ways. That's unrealistic. It wasn't his job to show racists that black people are okay. Look at this article in the OP--in the 70s we have powerful politicians discussing in terms of policy the powerful public sentiment that certain groups aren't civilized and can't govern themselves. Those people are still alive and in fact are the group that votes the most consistently. 

I shouldn't be surprised that for some here it's impossible to get more nuanced than "you said racism is bad, but you talk about race all the time". Mind-boggling. 
:goodposting:   Especially the bold.  Race is a messy thing to deal with if you're really going to deal with it.  People are uncomfortable with it.  Throw on top of that the diversity in the Democratic party and they simply can't avoid talking about race.  I guess that's one of the benefits for the GOP.  The old white guys don't need to talk about anyone other than their constituents.  It's much easier to tailor a message when the audience is made up of essentially one demographic.

 
It's weird to see some in here equate talking about race with racism. Yeah, democrats talk about race a lot. Because it is important. Especially to many constituents who aren't white and don't have the privilege of going about their lives in a world where their race generally doesn't matter. 

In fact, for most people I know who aren't white, their racial background and cultural identity is important to them. With the small caveat that they just don't want to be discriminated against or hated for it. This idea mentioned by Ditkaless Wonders above (and none of the rest of this post is aimed at you, DW) of a "post racial society" is/was really only a thing white people are interested in, in my experience. Most people I know want to acknowledge and celebrate the differences between them, not ignore them because it's easier. Imo this idea of a world where we can ignore race all together was originally appealing only to people who couldn't afford to think any deeper on the topic of race lest they let in the bad racist thoughts--it had to become something that they didn't want to ackowledge at all, in an overcorrection. And it has evolved from there.

The talking point from some that Obama could have healed the racial divide but instead talked about race too much and caused a greater rift is insane imo. Both because it places too much responsibility onto one well-meaning man, and because it's cuckoo to think that one competent, performatively color-blind President of color would have made people realize the error of their ways. That's unrealistic. It wasn't his job to show racists that black people are okay. Look at this article in the OP--in the 70s we have powerful politicians discussing in terms of policy the powerful public sentiment that certain groups aren't civilized and can't govern themselves. Those people are still alive and in fact are the group that votes the most consistently. 

I shouldn't be surprised that for some here it's impossible to get more nuanced than "you said racism is bad, but you talk about race all the time". Mind-boggling. Race is important to democrats and republicans--for very different reasons. 
Race is messy.  I hate to admit but I have family members who if not racist because they are a minority themselves but very bigoted against black people.  Some black people I work with are bigots, some white people I work with I am sure are a little racist behind closed doors. Many Muslim and Jews do not want their kids dating or marrying out of religion. The Asians at my place of employment really do not want anything to do with any other race, are they racist or bigots?  I don`t know.  There is no simple solution anytime soon.

 
The hopes of a post racial society which were on touted upon Obama's election, which were on life support after his Administration and the reactions thereto can now, seemingly, be eulogized.  Some malignancies are tougher to cure than may be hoped by the patient, this patient at any rate.
“Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

 
It's weird to see some in here equate talking about race with racism. Yeah, democrats talk about race a lot. Because it is important. Especially to many constituents who aren't white and don't have the privilege of going about their lives in a world where their race generally doesn't matter. 

In fact, for most people I know who aren't white, their racial background and cultural identity is important to them. With the small caveat that they just don't want to be discriminated against or hated for it. This idea mentioned by Ditkaless Wonders above (and none of the rest of this post is aimed at you, DW) of a "post racial society" is/was really only a thing white people are interested in, in my experience. Most people I know want to acknowledge and celebrate the differences between them, not ignore them because it's easier. Imo this idea of a world where we can ignore race all together was originally appealing only to people who couldn't afford to think any deeper on the topic of race lest they let in the bad racist thoughts--it had to become something that they didn't want to ackowledge at all, in an overcorrection. And it has evolved from there.

The talking point from some that Obama could have healed the racial divide but instead talked about race too much and caused a greater rift is insane imo. Both because it places too much responsibility onto one well-meaning man, and because it's cuckoo to think that one competent, performatively color-blind President of color would have made people realize the error of their ways. That's unrealistic. It wasn't his job to show racists that black people are okay. Look at this article in the OP--in the 70s we have powerful politicians discussing in terms of policy the powerful public sentiment that certain groups aren't civilized and can't govern themselves. Those people are still alive and in fact are the group that votes the most consistently. 

I shouldn't be surprised that for some here it's impossible to get more nuanced than "you said racism is bad, but you talk about race all the time". Mind-boggling. Race is important to democrats and republicans--for very different reasons. 
No worries.  I take your meaning as intended, not looking to find slights.  Simply addressing the subject and not the person, as should be.  I get you were merely referencing ht subject by the person who most recently raised it.  You are Aces in my book.

 
Even before the current Reagan statement was found on the Nixon Tapes, it was already known that the Nixon Tapes contain numerous statements that you would likely consider racist.

Nixon Tapes — He Disses Jews, Blacks, Italians, Irish

Nixon and Moynihan on Race and IQ–Know the Truth–Don’t Admit It!
I’m aware. I stated that wrongly. What I meant to say is that these were private attitudes, not publicly known (unlike Trump) and both men accomplished much for civil rights. 

 
There will come a day when we can once again put finer points on prejudices past, but this isn't it. As i said in the "definition of racism thread:

Absolutism has done great self-harm to liberation struggles for women, people of color & differents in this country. Perhaps because every rule has already been bent against them in one way or another, each group has embraced fallacies in the name of having at least one gun to slam down on the table. Reparations were in sight for black people, yet they used what political capital they were gaining to own the n-word and punish hi-profile violators (when they were usually nowhere near the most virulent bigots) instead. LGBT have embraced an unknowable basis (that sexuality is a birthright) for their struggle because they fear they'll be set back if sexual hormonality is seen as spectral (which it almost certainly is). Women's new lie is that centuries of trading on pulchritude & exploiting their gatekeeper status is absolved by bad male sexual conduct. That'n's gonna splode quicker than you might think.
There is a difference between failing to see classes of people as equals and refusing to see them as equals. That is the point at play here - people like to assume they are better than people and the imperialist Catch-22 of oppressing a class and then using their failure or slowness or need of help in liberating themselves as criteria to think less of them feeds into that naturally. Doubts about capacity have been erased to a point that, now, a failure to see differents as equal IS a refusal to see that. But it wasn't always so and that grades the crime - one is a misdemeanor, the other a felony.

 
If you enjoy Reagan speeches...

A Time for Choosing
I love his speeches. I’ve been to the Library several times. 

Thats one of the things that was missing last night. Wonky debates (Medicare for All vs public option, etc) are fine and have their place, but where is the person who speaks with uplift about America and makes you feel good, the way Reagan did? It’s one of the reasons I suggested Michelle Obama early in this cycle, because I sense she has that potential. That’s what we need to defeat Donald Trump- not just for this election, but to defeat the forces of Trumpism in general. You fight negativity with positivity; you fight villains with heroes. 

Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio, indeed? 

 
Or maybe all of the above is true.  It's possible, you know, that Trump is a racist AND Democrats way back were the face of slavery/KKK/Jim Crow.  Those aren't mutually exclusive.
except Trump hasn't said anything NEAR what they said - and I mean nowhere NEAR

 
156 years since the emancipation proclamation.  55 years since the Civil Rights Act.  At some point the positions of a Party or some of their members from generations ago fades into insignificance except as historical curiosity and potentially lesson.  When addressing current trends perhaps recent history is more instructive.   Complete irrelevancies, no, maybe not, but nearly so, those matters from prior to the mid 1800's and from mid century last century, I'm going to think probably so.  Times evolve.  The past is not an anchor, it is a lodestone at best.
there is some truth to that - sometimes stripes can change

sometimes they're just hidden better too

 
You are now simply arguing degrees of racism....hopefully you stop and think about that.  I hope one day you raise your bar a bit.
what did you think of the remarks/words Obama made in his books ? degree of racism or ?? just curious how you put your bar

 
why don't you believe white people's skin color matter?

it does - a lot
Not getting into this with you, as I've never seen an example of you taking in new information and amending your beliefs on this kind of stuff, so it's a waste of time even if I believed the conversation was worthwhile. 

But I will say that you've misconstrued what I said--I didn't say it didn't matter. I said that we live in a world where it generally doesn't matter, and I don't see how that can be argued. Most of us can go long periods of time without thinking about the fact that we're white, if we want. It isn't a contentious part of our existence. 

I do find it interesting that that's the part that caught your eye. Pretty on brand. 

 
Especially considering that the people who tell us it doesn’t matter are often the same people simultaneously telling us that white skin does matter when a profession, area, etc. has too much white skin and too little other skin.

Completely related politics story in the news.
The Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus

where is the Congressional White Caucus or would that be racist ?

is it racist that 70% of the NFL is black ? i mean diversity right, there should be a lot more white right?

 
The Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus

where is the Congressional White Caucus or would that be racist ?

is it racist that 70% of the NFL is black ? i mean diversity right, there should be a lot more white right?
You're being a joke.

"Where's our white history month" is next, right? 

You have no valuable understanding of what's going on in this thread. 

 
what did you think of the remarks/words Obama made in his books ? degree of racism or ?? just curious how you put your bar
I haven't read Obama's books.  If you have something specific you want me to read, please point me towards it....include context as well.

ETA:  To answer the bold....when I see racism, I call it what it is and it doesn't matter who's saying it.  It's part of the reason I have a stressed relationship with several family members.  I have zero tolerance for people who think their race is superior to other races and discriminates accordingly.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top