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)

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.
That story has a section in it with a technique that I am seeing more and more these days. Annoys me like crazy.

According to the Washington Post, many were surprised when Bustos took the job and brought on a slew of mostly white senior staffers. Given the importance of growing representation among House members, Democratic lawmakers were concerned, they told the Post.

As a Politico story detailed last week, those worries didn’t exactly go away, and only grew after a media report uncovered some unsavory tweets by a recently promoted DCCC official. These revelations culminated in even broader outcry from members of the Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

There is not one person of color — black or brown, that I’m aware of — at any position of authority or decision-making in the DCCC,” Rep. Marcia Fudge, a former CBC chair, told Politico.
The recently promoted DCCC official in that middle paragraph is a black woman. They absolutely just want you to assume it is a white person and not click on the hyperlink to the story. 

Then they follow up that paragraph with a quote saying the bold. WTF? I mean the woman in the middle paragraph was promoted to  

 lead a new multimillion-dollar initiative to connect with "people of color and younger Americans"
Screw the media. 

 
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. 
no, because having a different view than your is simply impossible isn't it ?
It's 2019. If you're still upset over the lack of a White History Month, then you're not worth engaging on any level.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's 2019. If you're still upset over the lack of a White History Month, then you're not worth engaging on any level.
Stealthy in the Kaepernick thread kept referring to Kaep as being half-white implying that being of mixed race disqualified him from speaking out on discrimination against African Americans and other minorities.

So I can't say his complaint about there not being a White History Month surprises me.

 
yes, so you can live in your own echo chamber and ignore anyone who disagree's with any views

that's the smart thing to do
You have a warped worldview. I don't feel that everyone is entitled to a debate. You are so far removed from reality from my POV that you may as well be trying to engage people on flat earth theory, but more dangerous. 

 
Stealthycat said:
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?
I'm sure that translates to coaches and GMs right? 

 
@timschochet I'm not sure if you follow Kevin Kruse (American History Professor at Princeton) on twitter, but I highly recommend doing so.  Very eye opening, to say the least.  

 
Reagan's daughter: No defense for those comments

The daughter of the late former US President Ronald Reagan has said there is "no defence" for racist comments he made in a 1971 phone conversation.

Newly unearthed tapes reveal Reagan - then Governor of California - described UN African delegates as "monkeys".

His daughter Patti Davis condemned the remarks in a newspaper article.

"There is no defence, no rationalisation, no suitable explanation for what my father said," she wrote.

Ms Davis wrote in an article for the Washington Post that she was preparing to defend her father before she heard the tapes, but was appalled to hear what the former president said.

"I can't tell you about the man who was on the phone," she writes. "He's not a man I knew."

 
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.
It’s been a while since I’ve seen you trot this out.  I have to hand it to you...no matter how many times you’ve been shown that this is an incredibly obtuse way of looking at history you still stick to your guns.  

 
It’s been a while since I’ve seen you trot this out.  I have to hand it to you...no matter how many times you’ve been shown that this is an incredibly obtuse way of looking at history you still stick to your guns.  
That is the Democrat history.  It is obtuse to deny it. The point he made was not all that good, but it does not change the fact the most racist policies in our nation's history were supported by mostly Democrats.    

 
jon_mx said:
That is the Democrat history.  It is obtuse to deny it. The point he made was not all that good, but it does not change the fact the most racist policies in our nation's history were supported by mostly Democrats.    
Until they left for the GOP.

 
OrtonToOlsen said:
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.
It’s been a while since I’ve seen you trot this out.  I have to hand it to you...no matter how many times you’ve been shown that this is an incredibly obtuse way of looking at history you still stick to your guns.  
Democrats were generally more racist than Republicans during the Civil War era and the period that followed. Therefore, Trump is not a racist.

I can buy that reasoning.

 
"I can't tell you about the man who was on the phone," she writes. "He's not a man I knew."

There's the trap again. Even well-meaning people offering no defense for a family member's racism fall into it. 

 
jon_mx said:
That is the Democrat history.  It is obtuse to deny it. The point he made was not all that good, but it does not change the fact the most racist policies in our nation's history were supported by mostly Democrats.    
Nobody is denying any history here.  

Nobody is disputing what the Democrats may or may not have done 60 or 160 years ago.

 
"I can't tell you about the man who was on the phone," she writes. "He's not a man I knew."

There's the trap again. Even well-meaning people offering no defense for a family member's racism fall into it. 
It's also a very subtle non-denial denial.

She's not saying "I was never aware of any racist beliefs." She's saying "I didn't get acquainted with that side of him."

 
It's also a very subtle non-denial denial.

She's not saying "I was never aware of any racist beliefs." She's saying "I didn't get acquainted with that side of him."


Right. To her, as it never manifested in a way that affected her, it didn't exist in the man she knew. Goes right back to what I was talking about earlier in this thread. 

 
Not really. 
Well ok, let's make threads about all the racial slurs politicians have made over the years.  

A book out today claims that 26 years ago Hillary Clinton called Paul Fray, her husband's campaign manager at the time, a "####### Jew *******".

Mrs Clinton denied the allegation and pressed the president into supporting her, but the author, Jerry Oppenheimer, said: "Three witnesses have now publicly acknowledged that she said it."

Seems the Democrats more recent history has been of anti-semitism.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well ok, let's make threads about all the racial slurs politicians have made over the years.  

A book out today claims that 26 years ago Hillary Clinton called Paul Fray, her husband's campaign manager at the time, a "####### Jew *******".

Mrs Clinton denied the allegation and pressed the president into supporting her, but the author, Jerry Oppenheimer, said: "Three witnesses have now publicly acknowledged that she said it."

Seems the Democrats more recent history has been of anti-semitism.   
She has a “D” next to her name. Nothing to see here

Move along 

 
Well ok, let's make threads about all the racial slurs politicians have made over the years.  

A book out today claims that 26 years ago Hillary Clinton called Paul Fray, her husband's campaign manager at the time, a "####### Jew *******".

Mrs Clinton denied the allegation and pressed the president into supporting her, but the author, Jerry Oppenheimer, said: "Three witnesses have now publicly acknowledged that she said it."

Seems the Democrats more recent history has been of anti-semitism.   
You’re trying to drag me into some debate that I have no interest in.

Go back about a page.

Just about any time the issue of the GOP/Trump comes up, SC brings up the racist past of the Democrats.  His point is that the Dems were once the party of slavery and segregation so they must still be racist.

Thats it.  

 
Well ok, let's make threads about all the racial slurs politicians have made over the years.  

A book out today claims that 26 years ago Hillary Clinton called Paul Fray, her husband's campaign manager at the time, a "####### Jew *******".

Mrs Clinton denied the allegation and pressed the president into supporting her, but the author, Jerry Oppenheimer, said: "Three witnesses have now publicly acknowledged that she said it."

Seems the Democrats more recent history has been of anti-semitism.   
BTW...

The book you’re talking about came out in 2000 not “today”.

If you’re just going to cut and paste after doing some Googling to back up a point you might want to be a bit more careful.

And Jerry Oppenheimer is one of those “unauthorized biographies” authors.

 
Democrats were generally more racist than Republicans during the Civil War era and the period that followed. Therefore, Trump is not a racist.

I can buy that reasoning.
nobody ever said that

what has been said, is that historically, like ever since this nation was founded, Democrats are the party of racism, its who they have been

now, the very party that for 200 years has been racist is convincing people that the other party that has historically NOT been racist, is racist

when Trump shows me racism I'll call it what it is like I do with anyone anytime. He's rude, crude, an ##### ... he calls things what they are .. . he's not racist IMO 

 
nobody ever said that

what has been said, is that historically, like ever since this nation was founded, Democrats are the party of racism, its who they have been

now, the very party that for 200 years has been racist is convincing people that the other party that has historically NOT been racist, is racist

when Trump shows me racism I'll call it what it is like I do with anyone anytime. He's rude, crude, an ##### ... he calls things what they are .. . he's not racist IMO 
The Democratic Party wasn’t founded until 1828 so not “like ever since this nation was founded”.

Lets take a look at the GOP’s history.

Crédit Mobilier...Lincoln/Grant

Black Friday Gold Panic....Grant

Whiskey Ring...Grant

Teapot Dome....Harding

Watergate....Nixon

Iran-Contra....Reagan

But I would never say “historically, the Republican Party is the party of scandal and corruption”.  Why? Because I have a basic grasp of history.

 
And someone is back saying BOFF SIDEZZZ
It is quite a legitimate point since in this echo chamber it is oblivious to the fact that their own sides sucks too.  A bunch of self-righteous condemnation of one-side with zero fair-mindedness in looking at the whole picture.  It is quite easy to just look at the worst of the other side and only smell the roses on your side.  We need to look at the whole picture with balance and understanding.  Otherwise we will just keep getting more divided and the discussions will get uglier.  

 
Right. To her, as it never manifested in a way that affected her, it didn't exist in the man she knew. Goes right back to what I was talking about earlier in this thread. 
But again, somebody can do good and bad things.  Some things aren’t obvious - for example, I think you are a really good poster and you and I frequently agree on a lot of things.  Somebody else could come in and say you are a bad guy because you have a Washington Redskins helmet in your avatar and “Skins” in your alias.  

 
jon_mx said:
That is the Democrat history.  It is obtuse to deny it. The point he made was not all that good, but it does not change the fact the most racist policies in our nation's history were supported by mostly Democrats.    
One of those Democrats was a guy named Strom Thurmond. In response to a pro civil rights position taken in the 1948 Democratic convention he ran as a 3rd party candidate for the Dixiecrats in the Presidential election that year. He actually carried some Southern states but then returned to the Senate as a Democrat. In 1964 LBJ (of all people) was able to put together enough votes to pass the Civil Rights Act  despite the opposition of Southern conservative Democrats and Goldwater Republicans. Strom Thurmond quit the Democratitic party immediately after that and becme a Republican because he realized that they were more in tune with his racist beliefs than the (Northern) Democrats were.

Strom Thurmond remained very popular with his GOP colleages to the end of his life despite being every bit the outright racist he was in 1948 and 1964 every day of his life.   The Strom Thurmond type disappeared from the Democratic party over the last 50 years. The people that share his belliefs are now members of the GOP but they follow the rule of using code words and dog whistles to give themselves plausible deniability of their racist attitudes. They're not fooling anyone but cultural convention says everyone must accept it.

 
But again, somebody can do good and bad things.  Some things aren’t obvious - for example, I think you are a really good poster and you and I frequently agree on a lot of things.  Somebody else could come in and say you are a bad guy because you have a Washington Redskins helmet in your avatar and “Skins” in your alias.  
I think about this a lot.

And to be clear - that is no defense of Reagan’s comments.  They are horrible but need to be viewed through the prism of the time the were said.  
Always true of historical figures--but it was horribly racist at the time as well. There's a reason he said this in a private phone conversation with a like-minded person and not where it could be publically attributed to him at the time. 

 
And to be clear - that is no defense of Reagan’s comments.  They are horrible but need to be viewed through the prism of the time the were said.  
I must have missed that episode of "All In The Family" where Archie calls Africans "monkeys" and everyone laughs.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top