apologists came on to "defend" the tweets, some in nearly identical language (and certainly with identical intent). When does racist apology become actual racism? How does one distinguish it from racism?.
When does "racist apology become actual racism?" Answering such a question is difficult as I am struggling to understand the meaning of the phrase "racist apology." Apparently, a "defense" of an alleged or perceived racist message or conduct is a "racist apology," which ignores the possibility a defense could be made while not constituting as a "racist apology."
I interpret your prose more charitably to mean when does a defense of a racist statement or racist conduct, constitute as a racist apology and/or as racism? If my charitable interpretation is inaccurate, then please so advise.
A defense of blatant racist conduct/statements can more easily be associated with perhaps being racist itself and/or racism. But what about a statement or conduct in which the racism/racist character is not overt?
If the racist nature of the conduct or statement is not conspicuous, but cloaked in ambiguity, then the more difficult it will be to associate an individual's defense of the conduct/statement to racism.
Perhaps Trump's Tweets about 4 Democratic Congresswomen best illustrates my point.
Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough!
The plain text, and only the plain text above, is not overtly racist. Indeed, a reasonable reading of the text, and only text, is that the text lacks a racist component. Some Trump supporters offering a defense of those remarks may be relying upon nothing more than the text itself, which is to say they are not overly analytical, and are not processing other information. This group cannot rationally be said to offer a racist defense/apology, even if Trump intended, desired, and wanted to communicate a racist message, obscured no doubt by rather race neutral language.
Another group of defenders may take into consideration far more factors, which is to say they are more analytical, more inquisitive, than those in the preceding group. They may look at the ethnic and racial composition of the 4 congresswomen. They may also observe three of them are U.S. citizens, born in the U.S., and the fourth has been naturalized. This group may trace the evidentiary trail back far enough to discover the countries the “Squad” members trace their lineage back to, a family tree analysis of sorts. However, this same group may conclude the President referenced the countries, the nations, which isn’t equivalent to race.
Another group may take all the preceding facts into consideration along with other facts, such as Trump’s comments regarding a federal judge as Mexican who is, outwardly, as white as a Caucasian, his derogatory remarks about people emigrating from Africa, Dominican Republic, etcetera, and conclude a racist Tweet above. Essentially, since he has said, arguably, racist comments before, then this specific tweet is also racist.
The difficulty with that logic, however, is that the notion this specific tweet is racist doesn’t follow from the fact he’s made racist remarks previously. Such reasoning excludes as possible that Trump could make those specific remarks on this occasion without any intent to be racist despite his history. It could be Trump is truly saying they should shut up or leave, and nothing more.
Of course it’s true Trump, wanting to avoid overt racist, comment, disguises his racist intent and subliminal racist message, with less than racist verbiage. That is possible but illuminates, as I said before, the difficulty of linking an apology to an ambiguous, and not overt racist statement/conduct.
For me, I think it’s possible Trump’s message was racist, but it’s equivocal, and I construed his comment as more akin to love it (U.S.) or leave it.
My point, which isn’t to be lost, is that it is not as easy as suggested by some to conclude an apology is racist and Trump’s tweet above, and a defense of it, illustrates my point.
To be sure, there are those who determine Trump’s comments as something other than racist who would be predisposed to reach such a conclusion anyway. Undoubtedly the converse is true, some are predisposed to reach a conclusion the tweet was racist. I think too many of these two groups dominate not only this thread but wider society.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk