• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When does racist apology become actual racism?

AliHajiSheik said:
a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
Click to expand...

A political, economic a social system that benefits whites at the expense of nonwhites.
 
j brown's body said:
This is arguing that racism wouldn't exust if it's historical targets would refrain from calling it out. Which, in this day and age, doesn't surprise me.

I like your comparison of Trump to Sharpton, but it begs the observation that the country was willing to elevate a white race baiter to the White House. That should trouble everyone.
Click to expand...

Indeed it should, but it shows the extent to which the race game has been played up to this point. I don't think anyone understands that damning whites is a necessary - and indeed only part - of playing the minority race card. You;ll find that a portion of whites love being damned constantly, while others just get pissed off.
 
Rickeroo said:
Every white liberal that has their kids in a mostly white public school is a racist. Beyond that, the race game has two sides, side A and side B. Trump is playing side B, and everyone is shocked that side B actually has an "ethnic" racial identity. Just like the brown people on side A.

I don't see it as being victims. The way I look at it, every day the media is slamming white people with "omg black and brown people". That's great for a while, but we get tired of hearing about black and brown people.
Click to expand...

Ah...a post perfectly matched to the theme in the op. Bravo.
 
Rickeroo said:
Every white liberal that has their kids in a mostly white public school is a racist. Beyond that, the race game has two sides, side A and side B. Trump is playing side B, and everyone is shocked that side B actually has an "ethnic" racial identity. Just like the brown people on side A.

I don't see it as being victims. The way I look at it, every day the media is slamming white people with "omg black and brown people". That's great for a while, but we get tired of hearing about black and brown people.
Click to expand...

They may not be racist in their beliefs, but they are benefiting from a social structure that is inherently racist.
 
NWRatCon said:
This is a serious question, not a troll-bait thread.

I admit that the public has largely become numb to the constant race-baiting shenanigans of Donald Trump, but the weekend tweetstorm was an appreciable "low". As a result, it generated a number of threads on the forum. Almost immediately - in some cases even preemptively - apologists came on to "defend" the tweets, some in nearly identical language (and certainly with identical intent). Which got me to actually ponder the question posed: When does racist apology become actual racism? How does one distinguish it from racism?

I recognize that I will get a lot of "responses" from people I have previously dismissed, but I am genuinely interested in thoughtful responses to the question.
Click to expand...

Oh, it most certainly is. All those people trying to make excuses for racism, trying to deny it exist or someone's action were obvious, whipping out "you are playing the race card" deflection are in fact racist themselves. They don't want to admit it, or pretend it is not true. That's the only reason why they excuse it
 
Visbek said:
Based on your post, I assume you mean: "When does defending racists, when they make racist statements, become racist?" The answer to that should be pretty obvious: The defenders are also racists, and there isn't any reason to draw a distinction.

Asking "is it racist to say 'go back to your country?' when you don't really know what's going on, that's not racist. Saying "I don't care if you were born in the US, go back to your country" almost exclusively because someone has brown skin? That's a problem.

The only exception is those who defend the concept of free speech from inappropriate government regulation. For example, let's say that a state outlaws any statements that deny slavery happened in the US, with a penalty of $5000 fine and/or 1 month in jail. Clearly this law is unconstitutional, as it violates the 1st Amendment. Attacking that law in court would not make someone a racist, even though ultimately they are defending the rights of racists to speak freely.
Click to expand...
I appreciate that as a thoughtful, developed response. I get the distinctions between protecting "First Amendment Rights" (see my sig line), and defending the content of the statement. I also appreciate the distinction you make between xenophobia and racism. Context does matter.
 
snakestretcher said:
If you are truly ignorant of the term, 'racist', I suggest you may be part of that unsavoury group, desperately attempting to deny that racism exists. It's not nice being a pariah, is it?
Click to expand...

It isn't nice being a troll, is it? So back in post #15, I responded to the original poster, who isn't a dick. Try reading what I suggested to see if you agree or disagree with the definition. I would expect you to disagree because it isn't in your nature.
 
NWRatCon said:
I can go with that.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. If something is truly racist, then I don't understand the distinction between something that is racist and something that is a racist apology, seems like the same thing to me.
 
NWRatCon said:
I don't think that was necessary. I meant it sincerely when I said "feel free to offer one."
Click to expand...

Among other factors in a definition, it's racist to use race as a political weapon.
That really expands the participation pool.
Do I need to name names?
 
NWRatCon said:
I had to do a lot of "un-twisting" to get through that thought processing. "There are other races besides "people of color"." Really? Are there? What would those be? Genuinely - doesn't the term "people of color" cover "non-white", meaning the opposite is... white? Caucasian? As in, singular?
Click to expand...

Yes - white / singular. The way the race game has been traditionally played, Trump doesn't need to bother with getting Americans of Italian descent and Irish descent riled up. All he needs to do is go for "white". The term "people of color" makes it easier to do this.

I don't think racism is a game. It is a pernicious condition. I don't deny that "racism" exists within many, many cultures and races. I've seen it, myself, in Panama. I don't think the average American could distinguish a Tutsi from a Hutu, but I guarantee a Rawandan probably can. But that is really not what is going on here, is it?
Click to expand...

Agree. We couldn't tell a Thai from a Burmese. But they could. Racism isn't a game, but the way race is peddled is.

You say, "Trump is simply reverse race-baiting." I challenge that. There is no such thing. Trump is race-baiting, period. There are "whites", good, and "others", bad. That's the formula. Cutting out the troll-baiting "left" stuff, what is your criteria for "race-baiting"? Mentioning race? Is Caucasian a "race"? I think the formulation that you presented, "pro-black" is "anti-white" is the essence of race-ism, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Racism is not a game, race-baiting is. Trump is simply reversing Al Sharpton's game. Caucasian is a race, and for the sake of the race game, "people of color" is also a race - it's everyone who isn't white. You have whites and then "everyone else", drawn along racial distinctions. Blacks and Hispanics are different yes - they could tell each other apart from a mile away. But with the race game, both of them are equally "people of color", meaning equally non-white. That makes blacks and Hispanics take up the same side on the race card. Whites alone occupy the other side.
 
j brown's body said:
A political, economic a social system that benefits whites at the expense of nonwhites.
Click to expand...

And what is the source of your definition, please? Mine is Merriam-Webster. You seem to be giving a "you can't be racist" pass to perhaps 11/12th of the entire world who aren't white.
 
NWRatCon said:
When does racist apology become actual racism? How does one distinguish it from racism?
Click to expand...
Racism is a motive, not an act. Someone could defend a racist act without having a racist motivation themselves, even if they’re aware their actions may support and encourage further racism (they don’t need to have a good motivation, just a non-racist one :) ).

Determining the true motives behind a person’s actions is always difficult (arguably impossible). That’s why there is so often the lazy desire to bind a particular act or a particular group of people with a defined motive, regardless of the truth of any individual incident. Motive and intent are certainly important, especially in addressing future behaviour of an individual but consequence regardless of motive, is important too, especially in more disconnected or abstracted situations like this.

Focusing on the potential negative consequence of an act mean you don’t have to deal with the difficult task of proving a motive. Of course, that also applies to blindly accusing someone of racism regardless of what they actually say. :cool:
 
Rickeroo said:
Yes - white / singular. The way the race game has been traditionally played, Trump doesn't need to bother with getting Americans of Italian descent and Irish descent riled up. All he needs to do is go for "white". The term "people of color" makes it easier to do this.



Agree. We couldn't tell a Thai from a Burmese. But they could. Racism isn't a game, but the way race is peddled is.



Racism is not a game, race-baiting is. Trump is simply reversing Al Sharpton's game. Caucasian is a race, and for the sake of the race game, "people of color" is also a race - it's everyone who isn't white. You have whites and then "everyone else", drawn along racial distinctions. Blacks and Hispanics are different yes - they could tell each other apart from a mile away. But with the race game, both of them are equally "people of color", meaning equally non-white. That makes blacks and Hispanics take up the same side on the race card. Whites alone occupy the other side.
Click to expand...

We all have a bit of black in us, and that includes you. We are all descended from the little black guys running around the Serengeti in Africa. Shocking huh?
 
Rickeroo said:
Indeed it should, but it shows the extent to which the race game has been played up to this point. I don't think anyone understands that damning whites is a necessary - and indeed only part - of playing the minority race card. You;ll find that a portion of whites love being damned constantly, while others just get pissed off.
Click to expand...
Your formulation is, well, just wrong. I happen to be white (although according to genetic testing, I have "less than 1%" Mali identity, so maybe I am "mixed race"). I was born that way. I can't do anything about that. Notwithstanding my "racial identity" I don't assume that anyone who points out that our society has a distinct racial history that has resulted in a distinct racial bias "hates whites". I don't "hate whites/myself" even though I, too, recognize that cultural bias.

Instead, I think that what you are displaying is inherent prejudice. What this is born of, I do not know, but it is clearly racial in nature. You assume that racial identity is a zero-sum "game". It is neither a game nor zero-sum.
 
j brown's body said:
They may not be racist in their beliefs, but they are benefiting from a social structure that is inherently racist.
Click to expand...

It is true that our social structure rewards performance. Minorities underperform, the main reason given for this is inherent racism.
 
snakestretcher said:
We all have a bit of black in us, and that includes you. We are all descended from the little black guys running around the Serengeti in Africa. Shocking huh?
Click to expand...

Yes they say mitochondrial Eve was about 40,000 years ago, our common mother. If this was significant, then Ocasio-Cortez (I say that with a respectful faux-Hispanic accent) would not be able to claim she is a woman of color, which would be in contrast to another American, Nancy Pelosi.

We allow Pelosi and Ocasio-Cortez to be of different races despite Eve, and use a faux accent for one of them to highlight the difference.
 
HonestJoe said:
Racism is a motive, not an act.
....
Determining the true motives behind a person’s actions is always difficult (arguably impossible). That’s why there is so often the lazy desire to bind a particular act or a particular group of people with a defined motive, regardless of the truth of any individual incident. Motive and intent are certainly important, especially in addressing future behaviour of an individual but consequence regardless of motive, is important too, especially in more disconnected or abstracted situations like this.

Focusing on the potential negative consequence of an act mean you don’t have to deal with the difficult task of proving a motive. Of course, that also applies to blindly accusing someone of racism regardless of what they actually say. :cool:
Click to expand...
I don't necessarily disagree with any of that, but I will make one observation: In the context of this discussion, the "defense" and the "act" are, essentially the same thing - the expression of words. That is I think my "conundrum" if you will.

Look, I don't think that there is any question that Trump's tweet was "racist" in either substance or intent. The defenses have often been as bad, substantively, as the original tweet. The question really is - can one tell, when the medium is just words, that the motivation is any different between the original poster and his defenders. Some here have indicated that making that distinction is unnecessary, others apparently are willing to. Personally, I find the discussion interesting and thought-provoking.

[To a certain extent, though, I regret it. I realize that asking the question does open the door to more of the same.]
 
Last edited:
Rickeroo said:
It is true that our social structure rewards performance. Minorities underperform, the main reason given for this is inherent racism.
Click to expand...

It rewards race. Homes in predominently Black communities have great value than homes in predominently white communities, even when the owners earn similar incomes. This helps explain the huge wealth gap between whites and blacks, not to mention the better government services, such as schools, for whites. Furthermore, names associated with whites on resumes are more likely to get called in for job interviews than are resumes with names associated with blacks. Blacks are more likely to be arrested and convicted for having pot than whites are.

Racism is systematic, and our unwillingness or inability to confront it is the crux of the problem.
 
Last edited:
AliHajiSheik said:
And what is the source of your definition, please? Mine is Merriam-Webster. You seem to be giving a "you can't be racist" pass to perhaps 11/12th of the entire world who aren't white.
Click to expand...

Your source. Definition 2.

Everyone has prejudice, and race is no exception. All whites harbor some racism. Calling it out in a binary view where racism is bad and non-racism is good generally fails to move the conversation forward and accomplish anything. We could make more progress towards equality if we accept that we all can and do carry and express racist sentiment. But it doesn't, by itself make us bad people. What makes us bad is our refusal to acknowledge it when we do harbor racist ideas, which, in turn, prevents us from addressing the systematic racism that is the real problem.

Certainly nonwhites can be prejudice but it doesn't interfere with the advantages given to me because I am white.
 
Last edited:
Fletch said:
You would first have to demonstrate why it is that suggesting that someone badmouthing the US should return to their place of origin is racist.
Click to expand...

And you would first, have to demonstrate how three of the four, born here in the US, have a place of origin, other than the US.
 
NWRatCon said:
This is a serious question, not a troll-bait thread.

I admit that the public has largely become numb to the constant race-baiting shenanigans of Donald Trump, but the weekend tweetstorm was an appreciable "low". As a result, it generated a number of threads on the forum. Almost immediately - in some cases even preemptively - apologists came on to "defend" the tweets, some in nearly identical language (and certainly with identical intent). Which got me to actually ponder the question posed: When does racist apology become actual racism? How does one distinguish it from racism?

I recognize that I will get a lot of "responses" from people I have previously dismissed, but I am genuinely interested in thoughtful responses to the question.
Click to expand...

What is racism is the Democratic Party contexting every topic into evaluating people solely upon the person's race, as the Democratic Party has always done and still does.

A person can only see Trump's tweets as racist if the person is fundamentally a racist - or is just engaging in another of endless dictated fake outrages.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Since you invented your own definition of the actual definition in 2b, no real need to have a discussion with you.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you feel the need to close your mind to your own source. I merely provided examples.
 
NWRatCon said:
This is a serious question, not a troll-bait thread.

I admit that the public has largely become numb to the constant race-baiting shenanigans of Donald Trump, but the weekend tweetstorm was an appreciable "low". As a result, it generated a number of threads on the forum. Almost immediately - in some cases even preemptively - apologists came on to "defend" the tweets, some in nearly identical language (and certainly with identical intent). Which got me to actually ponder the question posed: When does racist apology become actual racism? How does one distinguish it from racism?

I recognize that I will get a lot of "responses" from people I have previously dismissed, but I am genuinely interested in thoughtful responses to the question.
Click to expand...

Racial apologetics? Yeah, it's there in full measure. ;)
 
Fletch said:
You would first have to demonstrate why it is that suggesting that someone badmouthing the US should return to their place of origin is racist.
Click to expand...

Well, 1) They weren't badmouthing the US.
2) 3 of the 4 are FROM the U.S.
3) They were all people who were non-white, using language that was established about 'going back to africa' back during the civil right movement by people who were racist against black.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom