What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Reagan to Nixon: "those monkeys from African countries....they're still uncomfortable wearing shoes" (2 Viewers)

tommyGunZ

Footballguy
Further proof that Trump's GOP is really just a continuation of Reagan's GOP.

he day after the United Nations voted to recognize the People’s Republic of China, then–California Governor Ronald Reagan phoned President Richard Nixon at the White House and vented his frustration at the delegates who had sided against the United States. “Last night, I tell you, to watch that thing on television as I did,” Reagan said. “Yeah,” Nixon interjected. Reagan forged ahead with his complaint: “To see those, those monkeys from those African countries—damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes!” Nixon gave a huge laugh.

The past month has brought presidential racism back into the headlines. This October 1971 exchange between current and future presidents is a reminder that other presidents have subscribed to the racist belief that Africans or African Americans are somehow inferior. The most novel aspect of President Donald Trump’s racist gibes isn’t that he said them, but that he said them in public.

The exchange was taped by Nixon, and then later became the responsibility of the Nixon Presidential Library, which I directed from 2007 to 2011. When the National Archives originally released the tape of this conversation, in 2000, the racist portion was apparently withheld to protect Reagan’s privacy. A court order stipulated that the tapes be reviewed chronologically; the chronological review was completed in 2013. Not until 2017 or 2018 did the National Archives begin a general rereview of the earliest Nixon tapes. Reagan’s death, in 2004, eliminated the privacy concerns. Last year, as a researcher, I requested that the conversations involving Ronald Reagan be re-reviewed, and two weeks ago, the National Archives released complete versions of the October 1971 conversations involving Reagan online.

When the UN took its vote to seat a delegation from Beijing instead of from Taiwan in 1971, members of the Tanzanian delegation started dancing in the General Assembly. Reagan, a devoted defender of Taiwan, was incensed, and tried to reach Nixon the night of the vote. Reagan despised the United Nations, which he described as a “kangaroo court” filled with “bums,” and he wanted the U.S. to withdraw from full participation immediately. Nixon was asleep when Reagan called, so they spoke the next morning.

Reagan’s slur touched an already raw nerve. Earlier that day, Nixon had called his deputy national security adviser, Al Haig, to cancel any future meetings with any African leader who had not voted with the United States on Taiwan, even if they had already been scheduled. “Don’t even submit to me the problem that it’s difficult to turn it off since we have already accepted it,” Nixon exclaimed. “Just turn it off, on the ground that I will be out of town.”

Nixon’s anger at the UN delegations from African nations for the loss was misplaced. His own State Department blamed factors other than African voting, including maneuvering by the British and French behind the scenes, for the loss. But Nixon would have none of it. The Africans were to blame.

Had the story stopped there, it would have been bad enough. Racist venting is still racist. But what happened next showed the dynamic power of racism when it finds enablers. Nixon used Reagan’s call as an excuse to adapt his language to make the same point to others. Right after hanging up with Reagan, Nixon sought out Secretary of State William Rogers.

Even though Reagan had called Nixon to press him to withdraw from the United Nations, in Nixon’s telling, Reagan’s complaints about Africans became the primary purpose of the call.

“As you can imagine,” Nixon confided in Rogers, “there’s strong feeling that we just shouldn’t, as [Reagan] said, he saw these, as he said, he saw these—” Nixon stammered, choosing his words carefully—“these, uh, these cannibals on television last night, and he says, ‘Christ, they weren’t even wearing shoes, and here the United States is going to submit its fate to that,’ and so forth and so on.”

The president wanted his patrician secretary of state to understand that Reagan spoke for racist Americans, and they needed to be listened to. “You know, but that’s typical of a reaction, which is probably”—“That’s right,” Rogers interjected—“quite strong.”

Nixon couldn’t stop retelling his version of what Reagan had said. Oddly unfocused, he spoke with Rogers again two hours later and repeated the story as if it would be new to the secretary.

“Reagan called me last night,” Nixon said, “and I didn’t talk to him until this morning, but he is, of course, outraged. And I found out what outraged him, and I find this is typical of a lot of people: They saw it on television and, he said, ‘These cannibals jumping up and down and all that.’ And apparently it was a pretty grotesque picture.” Like Nixon, Rogers had not seen the televised images. But Rogers agreed: “Apparently, it was a terrible scene.” And, Nixon added, “they cheered.”

Then Nixon said, “He practically got sick at his stomach, and that’s why he called. And he said, ‘It was a terrible scene.’” And that sort of thing will have an emotional effect on people … as [Reagan] said, ‘This bunch of people who don’t even wear shoes yet, to be kicking the United States in the teeth’ … It was a terrible thing, they thought.”

Nixon didn’t think of himself as a racist; perhaps that’s why it was so important to him to keep quoting Reagan’s racism, rather than own the sentiment himself. But Reagan’s comment about African leaders resonated with Nixon, because it reflected his warped thinking about African Americans.

In the fall of 1971, the Nixon administration was engaged in a massive welfare-reform effort, and was also facing school busing. These two issues apparently inspired Nixon to examine more deeply his own thinking on whether African Americans could make it in American society. Only three weeks before the call with Reagan, Nixon had revealed his opinions on Africans and African Americans in a conversation with the Harvard professor Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who had briefly served in the Nixon administration. Nixon was attracted to the theories of Richard Herrnstein and Arthur Jensen, which linked IQ to race, and wondered what Moynihan thought.

“I have reluctantly concluded, based at least on the evidence presently before me … that what Herrnstein says, and what was said earlier by Jensen, is probably … very close to the truth,” Nixon explained to a quiet Moynihan. Nixon believed in a hierarchy of races, with whites and Asians much higher up than people of African descent and Latinos. And he had convinced himself that it wasn’t racist to think black people, as a group, were inferior to whites, so long as he held them in paternalistic regard. “Within groups, there are geniuses,” Nixon said. “There are geniuses within black groups. There are more within Asian groups … This is knowledge that is better not to know.”

Nixon’s analysis of African leadership reflected his prejudice toward America’s black citizens. This is, at least, what he told Moynihan. “Have in mind one fact: Did you realize there is not, of the 40 or 45—you’re at the United Nations—black countries that are represented there, not one has a president or a prime minister who is there as a result of a contested election such as we were insisting upon in Vietnam?” And, he continued, a little later in the conversation: “I’m not saying that blacks cannot govern; I am saying they have a hell of a time. Now, that must demonstrate something.”

Fifty years later, the one fact that we should have in mind is that our nation’s chief executive assumed that the nonwhite citizens of the United States were somehow inferior. Nixon confided in Moynihan, who had been one of his house intellectuals, about the nature of his interest in research on African American intelligence: “The reason I have to know it is that as I go for programs, I must know that they have basic weaknesses.”

As these and other tapes make clear, the 37th president of the United States was a racist: He believed in treating people according to their race, and that race implied fundamental differences in individual human beings. Nixon’s racism matters to us because he allowed his views on race to shape U.S. policies—both foreign and domestic. His policies need to be viewed through that lens.

The 40th president has not left as dramatic a record of his private thoughts. Reagan’s racism appears to be documented only once on the Nixon tapes, and never in his own diaries. His comment on African leaders, however, sheds new light on what lay behind the governor’s passionate defense of the apartheid states of Rhodesia and South Africa later in the 1970s. During his 1976 primary-challenge run against Gerald Ford, Reagan publicly opposed the Ford administration’s rejection of white-minority rule in Rhodesia. “We seem to be embarking on a policy of dictating to the people of southern Africa and running the risk of increased violence and bloodshed,” Reagan said at a rally in Texas.

These new tapes are a stark reminder of the racism that often lay behind the public rhetoric of American presidents. As I write a biography of JFK, I’ve found that this sort of racism did not animate President Kennedy—indeed, early on he took political risks to help African leaders, most notably Gamal Abdel Nasser and Kwame Nkrumah. But his reluctance to do more, sooner for African Americans cannot be separated from the paternalism he brought to the Oval Office or the prejudice held by parts of his Boston inner circle.

Kennedy, at least, learned on the job that securing civil rights for all was a moral imperative. Donald Trump, on the other hand, is a symptom of a sickness that dwells in American society, sometimes deeply and weakly, sometimes on the surface and feverishly. He bears responsibility for his own actions, but the tropes, the turns of phrase, the clumsy indirection, and worse, the gunk about American society that he and his most devoted followers pass off as ideas, have an ugly tradition. It is not at the core of the American tradition, for what makes us mighty and successful is that we are much more than the narrowest of our minds. But it remains an ineluctable part of American culture, nonetheless.

Nixon never changed his mind about the supposed inherent inferiority of Africans. At the end of October 1971, he discussed the UN vote with his best friend, Bebe Rebozo. Bebe delighted Nixon by echoing Reagan: “That reaction on television was, it proves how they ought to be still hanging from the trees by their tails.” Nixon laughed.

These days, though Trump’s imagery is less zoological, it is pretty much the same in spirit. And this president, unlike Nixon, doesn’t believe he needs to hide behind anyone else’s racism.
I'm especially looking forward to @timschochet's take.  

 
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. 

 
1971 was a different era.  It would be easy to find casual racism among leaders of both parties during that time.  (That doesn't make it right, of course).

 
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. 
Even when he's caught on tape using racist slurs? 

Time for some self reflection buddy.  It's not easy, but sometimes those we looked up to when we were younger aren't the idols we made them out to be.  I think a lot of former conservatives have trouble with this part of the journey.  Going full fledged in the opposite direction essentially means we were wrong about much/most of what we believed earlier in life.  And it's trendy to be "moderate", "independent", or "in the middle".  But it's also wrong and refusing to confront and call out modern day conservatism in America for what is it and what it's been the last several decades enables it to stay afloat.     

 
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. 
Reagan was almost certainly a racist.  So were LBJ, JFK, and most other people who were alive then.

The difference is that if Reagan were alive today, he and all of those people would hold much more progressive views on race, like how all of us do.  Trump, obviously, doesn't.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
1971 was a different era.  It would be easy to find casual racism among leaders of both parties during that time.  (That doesn't make it right, of course).
Yeah, it goes a little further than this IK.  The GOP has long denied relying on racism post-Civil Right movement, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.  Snippets like this, with the audio of Reagan actually saying it, is a virtual smoking gun.  

 
Yeah, it goes a little further than this IK.  The GOP has long denied relying on racism post-Civil Right movement, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.  Snippets like this, with the audio of Reagan actually saying it, is a virtual smoking gun.  
No, trust me on this one.  I am a big fan of Reagan.  That doesn't mean that I think Reagan (or anybody else) was a flawless individual.  I have no doubt that he shared the racist attitudes of that particular moment in time, and that doesn't change my view of his presidency.  This doesn't really register on the "gotcha" scale.  It's right there on the same level as "Martin Luther King cheated on his wife" in terms of being a character flaw that really shouldn't affect anybody's view of the person in the larger historical narrative.

 
No, trust me on this one.  I am a big fan of Reagan.  That doesn't mean that I think Reagan (or anybody else) was a flawless individual.  I have no doubt that he shared the racist attitudes of that particular moment in time, and that doesn't change my view of his presidency.  This doesn't really register on the "gotcha" scale.  It's right there on the same level as "Martin Luther King cheated on his wife" in terms of being a character flaw that really shouldn't affect anybody's view of the person in the larger historical narrative.
It's not really a question of members of both parties being racist -- I'm sure you're right about that.

It's that one of our two modern parties has built almost the entirety of its electoral success on racism racial resentment.  It's a straight line from Nixon and Atwater to Trump.  No speedbumps.  No detours.  It's at the center of the party and has been for 50 years.  Plausibly deniable for a long time (if you wanted to deny it to begin with), but there nonetheless.  The only thing that's changed is the dog whistle has been traded for a bullhorn.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You start out in 1954 by saying, "[n-word n-word n-word]" By 1968 you can't say "[n-word]" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "[n-word]"
~Lee Atwater

Turned into welfare queens.  Then Philadelphia Mississippi.  And so on and so on all the way down to "rat infested" and "go back".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And the quoted interview was 1981.  So not like this was ever a secret.
It's like how in 2060 there will be a whole bunch of old people claiming they didn't know all the #### about Trump.  Yeah -- because you were willing to close your eyes whenever he did something that made you uncomfortable.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not really a question of members of both parties being racist -- I'm sure you're right about that.

It's that one of our two modern parties has built almost the entirety of its electoral success on racism racial resentment.  It's a straight line from Nixon and Atwater to Trump.  No speedbumps.  No detours.  It's at the center of the party and has been for 50 years.  Plausibly deniable for a long time (if you wanted to deny it to begin with), but there nonetheless.  The only thing that's changed is the dog whistle has been traded for a bullhorn.
Reagan wasn't fundamentally about any of that.  (Neither was GHWB, Dole, W, McCain, or Romney for that matter).  Reagan was about anti-communism and small government.  And yes, I do deny that either of those has anything inherently to do with racial resentment.

By way of contrast, Trump is 100% overt racial resentment.

Edit: I mean, you're literally having this conversation with a guy who liked Romney and cut bait when Trump gained traction in the GOP primaries. It's not like I didn't personally see a sea change in the party in 2016.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Love the way people rationalize. I knew as a kid that #### was obscene, regardless of the time period. And that was with growing up with a father who routinely used the n-word.

Blaming prevailing cultural attitudes is weak imo, and it’s not like there wasn’t resistance to those attitudes at the time.

People aren’t always “a product of the environment and culture they grew up in” :rolleyes: .  Decency and intellect can transcend those weak flawed rationalizations. Or I guess I should have grown up a racist (and a republican).

 
Reagan wasn't fundamentally about any of that.  (Neither was GHWB, Dole, W, McCain, or Romney for that matter).  Reagan was about anti-communism and small government.  And yes, I do deny that either of those has anything inherently to do with racial resentment.

By way of contrast, Trump is 100% overt racial resentment.

Edit: I mean, you're literally having this conversation with a guy who liked Romney and cut bait when Trump gained traction in the GOP primaries. It's not like I didn't personally see a sea change in the party in 2016.
Such a sea change that virtually all Republican politicians and voters got swept up in it?  You’re one of my favorite FBG posters of all time IK, but I think you’re being either naive or willfully blind here.  For decades liberals have pointed to Atwater and the Southern Strategy and to the fact that without embracing racial resentment, the Republican Party would cease to exist on a national scale.  Now that it’s being exposed for everyone to see, the “sea change in 2016 narrative” is the spin from conservatives to avoid taking responsibly for Frankenstein.  

At least that’s how this poster sees it.   :shrug:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Love the way people rationalize. I knew as a kid that #### was obscene, regardless of the time period. And that was with growing up with a father who routinely used the n-word.

Blaming prevailing cultural attitudes is weak imo, and it’s not like there wasn’t resistance to those attitudes at the time.

People aren’t always “a product of the environment and culture they grew up in” :rolleyes: .  Decency and intellect can transcend those weak flawed rationalizations. Or I guess I should have grown up a racist (and a republican).
See, this is an interesting observation that provides a good launching point for deeper thought.  My grandparents were definitely racist.  I can't recall for sure if any of them ever used the N-word in my presence, but it would have been in character for some of them to do so.  My parents and several of my in-laws are die-hard Trump supporters and also racists.  Their support of Trump goes beyond racial issues, and none of them would ever use the N-word or go around burning crosses, but they're clearly racist.  

Most of them are also basically good people.  

I think a huge chunk of these issues boils down to "Are racists automatically bad people?"  I think the answer is pretty obviously no, and I'm guessing that a study of history and especially a study of our own families will support that hypothesis.  Its certainly a character flaw, but it isn't the deal-breaker that people sometimes make it out to be, particularly when it's incidental.

 
Such a sea change that virtually all Republican politicians and voters got swept up in it?  You’re one of my favorite FBG posters of all time IK, but I think you’re being either naive or willfully blind here.  For decades liberals have pointed to Atwater and the Southern Strategy and to the fact that without embracing racial resentment, the Republican Party would cease to exist on a national scale.  Now that it’s being exposed for everyone to see, the “sea change in 2016 narrative” is the spin from conservatives to avoid taking responsibly for Frankenstein.  

At least that’s how this poster sees it.   :shrug:
I agree with you that the Republican party doesn't deserve the support of well-intentioned conservatives.  I've been nothing but critical of it for most of the past two years.

 
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
See, this is an interesting observation that provides a good launching point for deeper thought.  My grandparents were definitely racist.  I can't recall for sure if any of them ever used the N-word in my presence, but it would have been in character for some of them to do so.  My parents and several of my in-laws are die-hard Trump supporters and also racists.  Their support of Trump goes beyond racial issues, and none of them would ever use the N-word or go around burning crosses, but they're clearly racist.  

Most of them are also basically good people.  

I think a huge chunk of these issues boils down to "Are racists automatically bad people?"  I think the answer is pretty obviously no, and I'm guessing that a study of history and especially a study of our own families will support that hypothesis.  Its certainly a character flaw, but it isn't the deal-breaker that people sometimes make it out to be, particularly when it's incidental.
Ivan you’re a smart guy and intellectually honest from everything I’ve read over the years. And I find it really interesting that you bring up the bolded because it’s exactly what I’ve spent a whole lot of time thinking about in my personal life, and commenting on regarding Trump supporters.

Regarding my family, everyone viewed them as “good people” because they were extremely hard workers and did a lot for neighbors, etc.

Thats a low bar imo, and overwhelmingly insufficient. We all weight all these different characteristics to yield a profile. I attach a huge weight to racism, I cannot consider someone a good person who is also a racist. I always assumed (when younger) that everyone thought this way. It’s a dealbreaker, the bottleneck (or one of them) to decency.

Despite my respect for you it’s very disheartening to see you minimize it to the level of “a character flaw”. That ignores so much tragedy and injustice it’s incomprehensible to me.

 
Ivan you’re a smart guy and intellectually honest from everything I’ve read over the years. And I find it really interesting that you bring up the bolded because it’s exactly what I’ve spent a whole lot of time thinking about in my personal life, and commenting on regarding Trump supporters.

Regarding my family, everyone viewed them as “good people” because they were extremely hard workers and did a lot for neighbors, etc.

Thats a low bar imo, and overwhelmingly insufficient. We all weight all these different characteristics to yield a profile. I attach a huge weight to racism, I cannot consider someone a good person who is also a racist. I always assumed (when younger) that everyone thought this way. It’s a dealbreaker, the bottleneck (or one of them) to decency.

Despite my respect for you it’s very disheartening to see you minimize it to the level of “a character flaw”. That ignores so much tragedy and injustice it’s incomprehensible to me.
I should reinforce here that I don't condone racism.  It is clearly and unambiguously bad.

Let me put it this way.  My mom is a soft-core racist Trump supporter.  I reject her sort-core racism and I reject her support of Trump.  But do you still get why I love my mom?  I genuinely don't see her as a bad person despite her worldview, which I deeply disagree with.

Again, to be totally clear, this isn't to say that these aren't bad things, because they are.  But she's 75 . . . 

 
I should reinforce here that I don't condone racism.  It is clearly and unambiguously bad.

Let me put it this way.  My mom is a soft-core racist Trump supporter.  I reject her sort-core racism and I reject her support of Trump.  But do you still get why I love my mom?  I genuinely don't see her as a bad person despite her worldview, which I deeply disagree with.

Again, to be totally clear, this isn't to say that these aren't bad things, because they are.  But she's 75 . . . 
I would absolutely never accuse you of the bolded. And yes, I get it. I personally can’t get past it. 

 
No, trust me on this one.  I am a big fan of Reagan.  That doesn't mean that I think Reagan (or anybody else) was a flawless individual.  I have no doubt that he shared the racist attitudes of that particular moment in time, and that doesn't change my view of his presidency.  This doesn't really register on the "gotcha" scale.  It's right there on the same level as "Martin Luther King cheated on his wife" in terms of being a character flaw that really shouldn't affect anybody's view of the person in the larger historical narrative.
It seems to me that Reagan knew that his racist beliefs were not considered to be "normal" for their time period, otherwise he wouldn't have made sure to conceal his opinions in (what he thought was) a private phone conversation with a likeminded person.

That puts him in stark contrast with someone like, for example, Bill Clinton, whose Stone Mountain stunt was done in full view of the public and was ultimately tolerated by the majority of the population.

To put it another way: if the public had heard "those monkeys" in 1971, Reagan's political career would have been seriously damaged, if not toast.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I’ve struggled with the same question the past couple of years IK and Ranethe.  I’ve come to the conclusion that yes, my friends and family who support this crap are on the whole not good people, despite the kindness and generosity they have shown me over the years.  It’s extremely sad, but I think reaching any other conclusion isn’t honest or objective.  

 
I agree with you that the Republican party doesn't deserve the support of well-intentioned conservatives.  I've been nothing but critical of it for most of the past two years.
I appreciate this IK, and I highly respect your opinions.  IMO this goes way deeper than 2016, but I’m just happy that we’re getting closer politically after all these years.  Cheers!  

 
I appreciate this IK, and I highly respect your opinions.  IMO this goes way deeper than 2016, but I’m just happy that we’re getting closer politically after all these years.  Cheers!  
:lmao:  You mean you're happy he sees things your way on something because you're so open-minded

 
I’ve struggled with the same question the past couple of years IK and Ranethe.  I’ve come to the conclusion that yes, my friends and family who support this crap are on the whole not good people, despite the kindness and generosity they have shown me over the years.  It’s extremely sad, but I think reaching any other conclusion isn’t honest or objective.  
Something is very sad, that is for sure.  

 
I’ve struggled with the same question the past couple of years IK and Ranethe.  I’ve come to the conclusion that yes, my friends and family who support this crap are on the whole not good people, despite the kindness and generosity they have shown me over the years.  It’s extremely sad, but I think reaching any other conclusion isn’t honest or objective.  
You think other's opinions disagreeing with your opinion are dishonest opinions? You don't say!

 
I’ve struggled with the same question the past couple of years IK and Ranethe.  I’ve come to the conclusion that yes, my friends and family who support this crap are on the whole not good people, despite the kindness and generosity they have shown me over the years.  It’s extremely sad, but I think reaching any other conclusion isn’t honest or objective.  
If you believe in honesty that much then why not be honest with the friends and family you mentioned and tell them to their face that they’re not “good people”?

I mean talking about them behind their backs doesn’t seem that honest nor does tolerating behavior you’re suggesting shouldn’t be tolerated.  If it’s that important and defining of an issue to you then you really should cut them out of your life or else you’re just tacitly approving bad behavior from bad people.

 
See, this is an interesting observation that provides a good launching point for deeper thought.  My grandparents were definitely racist.  I can't recall for sure if any of them ever used the N-word in my presence, but it would have been in character for some of them to do so.  My parents and several of my in-laws are die-hard Trump supporters and also racists.  Their support of Trump goes beyond racial issues, and none of them would ever use the N-word or go around burning crosses, but they're clearly racist.  

Most of them are also basically good people.  

I think a huge chunk of these issues boils down to "Are racists automatically bad people?"  I think the answer is pretty obviously no, and I'm guessing that a study of history and especially a study of our own families will support that hypothesis.  Its certainly a character flaw, but it isn't the deal-breaker that people sometimes make it out to be, particularly when it's incidental.


You (and others) can rationalize it and think that obviously racist family members are "basically good people" because you're white also, so you can mostly ignore it. And because the vast majority of people in the world don't wield enough power over others for their bad worldviews to have too high a cost. But we can't really know how many day-to-day interactions are tainted by hidden racism. How many millions of people has deeply set (but publically hidden, most of the time) racism affected in schools or work places alone? How many people of color don't get opportunities or even the benefit of the doubt from white people in their lives, even if they don't even know it? This is just scratching the surface really. Racism is insidious. It's not just violent or outwardly hateful, it's an always-on worldview. It has the potential to infect every thought and decision. 

It's easy to write off our family and friends' racism as unfortunate but not a true stain on their goodness, because it doesn't really affect other white people, and most of us here are white. It can be avoided, hell for lots of people who don't talk politics or controversy at the dinner table it probably acts as almost a switch that seemingly gets turned off when they walk in the door.

But it's not. They go about their lives out in the world with that racism every day and it affects everything they do on some level. I've stopped being able to ignore that in the last couple years. That ugliness may not rear its head directed at us, but it's still there. Waiting to be harnessed, as 2016 showed us. 

Racists almost by definition can't really be "good people". They can treat people well. They just aren't directing their bad towards the people they love and care about. People they respect are safe from it. And most people they would be racist towards are probably pretty insulated against it a lot of the time, too. But if the racist were to gain a position of influence? Harder to keep it in then. Not so harmless any more. 

It's hard to look down the table at Thanksgiving and realize a lot of people we love are actually not good people. Or not as good as we thought. But letting it be seen as a mere "character flaw" and letting it fester for generations because they are decent in their everyday lives and good family members...that's how we got into this mess. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Who was the biggest racist among Republican Presidents? I would guess not Trump or Reagan; the prize has to go to Abraham Lincoln, who believed that blacks and whites could not live together in peace and proposed that black people in this country remove themselves to Liberia. 

But Lincoln is probably our greatest American, and the white man that blacks in this country most revere, deservedly so. History is complicated. 

 
What does “good people” even mean of we’re giving blatant racism a pass?
Has a good person ever lived? Will one?

Aristotle was super racist. So were all of his contemporaries.

People who lived a hundred years ago would be genuinely shocked to learn that homophobia would one day be considered immoral.

Everyone alive today is almost certainly guilty of some offense (eating meat? supporting the incarceration of criminals? shutting down our iPhones without Siri’s express permission?) that people a few generations from now will consider to be at least as bad as racism.

As judged by our great-great-grandchildren, we are all, I fear, terrible people. Every one of us.

 
That's always been true. Societal norms change. But that doesn't mean people shouldn't process new information, learn, and grow. Actively trying to figure out what's right, and what that even means, seems like a good start for an aspiring 'good person'.

 
Who was the biggest racist among Republican Presidents? I would guess not Trump or Reagan; the prize has to go to Abraham Lincoln, who believed that blacks and whites could not live together in peace and proposed that black people in this country remove themselves to Liberia. 

But Lincoln is probably our greatest American, and the white man that blacks in this country most revere, deservedly so. History is complicated. 
People, and society are complicated.

 
I’ve struggled with the same question the past couple of years IK and Ranethe.  I’ve come to the conclusion that yes, my friends and family who support this crap are on the whole not good people, despite the kindness and generosity they have shown me over the years.  It’s extremely sad, but I think reaching any other conclusion isn’t honest or objective.  
I’m closer to IK than you are but how I evaluate it is on a continuum - this isn’t a binary switch where someone is good or bad, racist or not racist.  It’s way too nuanced than that.  Because if it is then all of us are bad for different reasons.  I 100% know my mother is not a bad person but I also know she supports Trump and has some of these same racist attitudes that is unfortunately all too common with people of her age.

 
It's not really a question of members of both parties being racist -- I'm sure you're right about that.

It's that one of our two modern parties has built almost the entirety of its electoral success on racism racial resentment.  It's a straight line from Nixon and Atwater to Trump.  No speedbumps.  No detours.  It's at the center of the party and has been for 50 years.  Plausibly deniable for a long time (if you wanted to deny it to begin with), but there nonetheless.  The only thing that's changed is the dog whistle has been traded for a bullhorn.
I agree.  The Democrats have built an entire party out of racial resentment.  

 
Has a good person ever lived? Will one?

Aristotle was super racist. So were all of his contemporaries.

People who lived a hundred years ago would be genuinely shocked to learn that homophobia would one day be considered immoral.

Everyone alive today is almost certainly guilty of some offense (eating meat? supporting the incarceration of criminals? shutting down our iPhones without Siri’s express permission?) that people a few generations from now will consider to be at least as bad as racism.

As judged by our great-great-grandchildren, we are all, I fear, terrible people. Every one of us.
Fair points.  The definition of a good person obviously varies from person to person.  IMO, if you are actively supporting  racism at this time, you’ve crossed the line.  Others mileage may vary.  

 
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. 
I remember Earl Butz.  Secretary of Agriculture if I recall.  I believe he was in both the Ford and Nixon administrations if I recall correctly.  He came to my attention, my relatives being Catholic and attentive to comments about the Pope, when he mocked the Pope and folks of Italian decent with a quote in a bad Italian-American accent.  There was a bit of a scandal from his mocking.  He then, in an unrelated incident, put forth his most famous quote, the one for which he is remembered.  In it, talking about blacks, he stated that all they wanted was a gratifying sexual partner, comfortable footwear, and a climate controlled facility in which to defecate, except he did not show such restraint in any of the descriptors I just used, electing instead to go with obscenities. (I chose not to go with the original quote as I believe it would have me banned here even though addressing an historical event.)

It was another time.  A time well past, or so I had hoped.  Recent events harkening back to such illusions are disheartening.

 
Interesting take. Personally, if I was asked the question, which of the two political parties is currently built out of racial resentment, Democrat is not the answer I would give. 
If you were to impartially evaluate which party uses 'racial resentment' to win votes, it would be Democrats by a mile.  Democrats are way more focused on race as a wedge issue.  

 
Has a good person ever lived? Will one?

Aristotle was super racist. So were all of his contemporaries.

People who lived a hundred years ago would be genuinely shocked to learn that homophobia would one day be considered immoral.

Everyone alive today is almost certainly guilty of some offense (eating meat? supporting the incarceration of criminals? shutting down our iPhones without Siri’s express permission?) that people a few generations from now will consider to be at least as bad as racism.

As judged by our great-great-grandchildren, we are all, I fear, terrible people. Every one of us.
The solution is obvious, lets not have great, great grandchildren.  That will teach them, or not, since, you know, we never sired their lineage. 

 
You (and others) can rationalize it and think that obviously racist family members are "basically good people" because you're white also, so you can mostly ignore it. And because the vast majority of people in the world don't wield enough power over others for their bad worldviews to have too high a cost. But we can't really know how many day-to-day interactions are tainted by hidden racism. How many millions of people has deeply set (but publically hidden, most of the time) racism affected in schools or work places alone? How many people of color don't get opportunities or even the benefit of the doubt from white people in their lives, even if they don't even know it? This is just scratching the surface really. Racism is insidious. It's not just violent or outwardly hateful, it's an always-on worldview. It has the potential to infect every thought and decision. 

It's easy to write off our family and friends' racism as unfortunate but not a true stain on their goodness, because it doesn't really affect other white people, and most of us here are white. It can be avoided, hell for lots of people who don't talk politics or controversy at the dinner table it probably acts as almost a switch that seemingly gets turned off when they walk in the door.

But it's not. They go about their lives out in the world with that racism every day and it affects everything they do on some level. I've stopped being able to ignore that in the last couple years. That ugliness may not rear its head directed at us, but it's still there. Waiting to be harnessed, as 2016 showed us. 

Racists almost by definition can't really be "good people". They can treat people well. They just aren't directing their bad towards the people they love and care about. People they respect are safe from it. And most people they would be racist towards are probably pretty insulated against it a lot of the time, too. But if the racist were to gain a position of influence? Harder to keep it in then. Not so harmless any more. 

It's hard to look down the table at Thanksgiving and realize a lot of people we love are actually not good people. Or not as good as we thought. But letting it be seen as a mere "character flaw" and letting it fester for generations because they are decent in their everyday lives and good family members...that's how we got into this mess. 
You could make the exact same argument about all sorts of other character flaws, like greed, lustfullnes, etc.  They're always on, they negatively affect the way we treat people, we should actively train our brains against them, etc.  Racism isn't unique in any of these regards.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you were to impartially evaluate which party uses 'racial resentment' to win votes, it would be Democrats by a mile.  Democrats are way more focused on race as a wedge issue.  
If we’re talking 2016 and, as it appears right now, 2020, I have to strongly disagree with this. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top