Do some people truly not realize they are racists?

[Xelor]

I have no doubt that there are people that don't realize that they're going to be labeled as racists, no matter what. Those are the folks who don't realize just how many idiotic race baiters there are in the world.

It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to.
-- W.C. Fields

 

[apdst]

It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to.
-- W.C. Fields

You people can't even defend your position.

 

[Middle_Ground]

I'm sure there are racists who know they are racist and don't care. I'm sure there are others who have ingrained bias but are not overt racists. I'm also sure that this applies to more than white people. It is a component of the human condition. People gravitate to those most like themselves. That's just how it is. We can legislate away a lot of it in a legal sense. Changing human nature is something else.

Totally agree with your post...my only differing opinion on it is there is nothing wrong with gravitating to a group because you fit in but to gravitate towards something in the workplace , financial industry, schools or any other place of power is when inherent biases make life more difficult for some.
I have a friend that owns a company if anyone ever found out that he prefers to and hires people of Hispanic decent because according to him they work harder. He would be in trouble, it's a bias and disgusting.

 

[Xelor]

You people can't even defend your position.

• You people? Who would "you people" be?
• Seeing as you replied quoting me, what exactly do you think is my position? What led you to think I have it?
  • I don't actually know that you understood my remarks because nothing you've said to me is contextually germane. But don't go explain my account because I didn't ask you to, and if you say something else that misses the point, I'm won't, as I have with your remark above, dignify it with a response.

 

[gdgyva]

Totally agree with your post...my only differing opinion on it is there is nothing wrong with gravitating to a group because you fit in but to gravitate towards something in the workplace , financial industry, schools or any other place of power is when inherent biases make life more difficult for some.
I have a friend that owns a company if anyone ever found out that he prefers to and hires people of Hispanic decent because according to him they work harder. He would be in trouble, it's a bias and disgusting.

my wife until recently had owned her own restaurant/catering business with her brother for the last 28 years

if you asked her, the hardest working people in the world come from central and south america...because her experience over that 28 years has led her to that conclusion...is it a correct conclusion? for her yes....for everyone, not so much

we all have our biases....you will never completely get rid of racism because we are human beings, and we are fallible, and we bring those fallacies everywhere we go....home, work, play...etc

my bias is towards smart people....i tend to hire those....i can teach you what i want you to know, but i cant teach intelligence

hey...no one is perfect :2wave:

 

[Slingshot Bob]

Is having one of these at the end of the driveway, racist?

 

[Critter7r]

Is having one of these at the end of the driveway, racist? View attachment 67232242

Nah. Pshaw. It's just a harking back to a time when black folk lived a life of servitude to white folk.

Hmmm ... Some people are gonna see it as racist.

 

[Slingshot Bob]

Nah. Pshaw. It's just a harking back to a time when black folk lived a life of servitude to white folk.

Hmmm ... Some people are gonna see it as racist.

How about now?

bet its OK now, right?

 

[Critter7r]

How about now? View attachment 67232247

bet its OK now, right?

See, nobody will have a problem with that. It's just a guy about to ride in a derby.

(You can tell by the boots)

 

[AGENT J]

Do some people truly not realize they are racists?

to answer your question, YES


since racism's foundation is ignorance of course some people just dont realize it.
some deny it
some are proud of it
but yes some just arent intellectually capable of recognizing facts

nothing new. Of course you expect to see less and less of it today since we are more educated but it still exists.

 

[Nickyjo]

A racist knows they are a racist. A bigot may not realize some of the things they do are perceived as racist by others. It's also possible to commit a bigoted or racist act without any ill will or malice intended.

Just had a thought... Your distinction suggests that one could call Donald Trump a bigot and that might be a compliment of sorts.

 

[AustralianuS]

independent thought is meaningless and a moniker lol. Theres a reason it cost 600k to keep a Ben Shapiro speech going and keeping you whiney censoring raging children from shutting it down. Group think is a disease, they don't even know why they were there they were told the Jewish man was a nazi lmao.

 

[Slingshot Bob]

See, nobody will have a problem with that. It's just a guy about to ride in a derby.

(You can tell by the boots)

But if we paint the same statue black, it is suddenly racist? Is that about how that works?

 

[Critter7r]

But if we paint the same statue black, it is suddenly racist? Is that about how that works?

No, because it's a jockey. The top one wasn't a jockey. I told you, the boots make it obvious.

 

[Slingshot Bob]

No, because it's a jockey. The top one wasn't a jockey. I told you, the boots make it obvious.

So the top one was not a Jockey? What is it then?

 

[Xelor]

How about now? View attachment 67232247

bet its OK now, right?

See, nobody will have a problem with that. It's just a guy about to ride in a derby.

(You can tell by the boots)

A few thoughts:

• If someone tells one that something one said or did offended them, is one really going to tell them that what one did/said wasn't offensive? The mere fact that they've stated that one offended them is all the proof one should need to accept that what one did/said is offensive. When it's substantively an entire group of people saying the same thing, what possesses other groups (or members thereof) to argue otherwise? When it comes to offending, demeaning, or degrading a person/group by way of imagery/symbols that perpetuates spurious and derogatory stereotypes, what value accrues from disregarding their pleas to cease and desist with doing so?
• As goes "Jocko" specifically (as opposed to the jockey pictured above), a notable part of the opprobrium blacks have derives from "Jocko's" being a caricature that perpetuates derogatory and demeaning stereotypes. How that works is the stuff of symbolism and imagery, which is why, in my OP, I put those three links about the mechanism of imagery and meaning. (I didn't feel safe assuming folks understand symbology, though some who have a deep art history and literature background (think Robert Langdon from the Da Vinci Code) may.)
  
  In the Reconstruction and Jim Crow eras, the white folks invented a form of entertainment in which they painted their fair faces black so that they would look like an caricature of the blacks and the only depictions and comportments of these characters were servility, bumbling incompetent, indolence, ignorance, abject stupidity, puerility and a host of other undesirable modalities. This form of entertainment happened in some parts of the world, but the images were exported far and wide, influencing the mindsets of whites, even whites who had little to no exposure to blacks. The entertainment form was called “blackface”, and even though whites people said it was just in good fun, the fact of the matter is that the laughter was at blacks' expense; moreover, positive, assertive, productive, strong images of blacks were not ever presented. In fact, blacks were furthermore allowed only to be entertainers in front of whites if blacks painted their faces black or acted silly.
  
  That legacy is the message of the imagery that, in a nutshell, the statues and dolls Jones lionize. It doesn't matter whether that legacy is part of Jones' truth, your truth, or my truth. That "Jocko" (and similar blackface images) symbolizes that legacy is an existential truth that exists without regard to what any of us individually thinks be "Jocko's" symbolism.
  
  Also, I'd think anyone can see the demeanor difference between "Jocko" and a non-caricature lawn jockey.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  The first image is presented in a proud bearing; however, were it painted with blackface/brownface, it'd become offensive merely by dint of the blackface. "Jocko," in contrast, along with being in blackface, isn't even presented with the trappings of being a jockey, let alone in a regal/proud pose that portrays him as a man of gravitas. Rather than racing silks, boots, and jodhpurs, "Jocko" has the stance and garb of a servant and the countenance of a clown.
  
  Actual black jockeys of the late 19th century
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

 

[Slingshot Bob]

A few thoughts:

• If someone tells one that something one said or did offended them, is one really going to tell them that what one did/said wasn't offensive? The mere fact that they've stated that one offended them is all the proof one should need to accept that what one did/said is offensive. When it's substantively an entire group of people saying the same thing, what possesses other groups (or members thereof) to argue otherwise? When it comes to offending, demeaning, or degrading a person/group by way of imagery/symbols that perpetuates spurious and derogatory stereotypes, what value accrues from disregarding their pleas to cease and desist with doing so?
• As goes "Jocko" specifically (as opposed to the jockey pictured above), a notable part of the opprobrium blacks have derives from "Jocko's" being a caricature that perpetuates derogatory and demeaning stereotypes. How that works is the stuff of symbolism and imagery, which is why, in my OP, I put those three links about the mechanism of imagery and meaning. (I didn't feel safe assuming folks understand symbology, though some who have a deep art history and literature background (think Robert Langdon from the Da Vinci Code) may.)
  
  In the Reconstruction and Jim Crow eras, the white folks invented a form of entertainment in which they painted their fair faces black so that they would look like an caricature of the blacks and the only depictions and comportments of these characters were servility, bumbling incompetent, indolence, ignorance, abject stupidity, puerility and a host of other undesirable modalities. This form of entertainment happened in some parts of the world, but the images were exported far and wide, influencing the mindsets of whites, even whites who had little to no exposure to blacks. The entertainment form was called “blackface”, and even though whites people said it was just in good fun, the fact of the matter is that the laughter was at blacks' expense; moreover, positive, assertive, productive, strong images of blacks were not ever presented. In fact, blacks were furthermore allowed only to be entertainers in front of whites if blacks painted their faces black or acted silly.
  
  That legacy is the message of the imagery that, in a nutshell, the statues and dolls Jones lionize. It doesn't matter whether that legacy is part of Jones' truth, your truth, or my truth. That "Jocko" (and similar blackface images) symbolizes that legacy is an existential truth that exists without regard to what any of us individually thinks be "Jocko's" symbolism.
  
  Also, I'd think anyone can see the demeanor difference between "Jocko" and a non-caricature lawn jockey.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  The first image is presented in a proud bearing; however, were it painted with blackface/brownface, it'd become offensive merely by dint of the blackface. "Jocko," in contrast, along with being in blackface, isn't even presented with the trappings of being a jockey, let alone in a regal/proud pose that portrays him as a man of gravitas. Rather than racing silks, boots, and jodhpurs, "Jocko" has the stance and garb of a servant and the countenance of a clown.
  
  Actual black jockeys of the late 19th century
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

I could agree with your assessment of this But calling this one racist is a stretch especially since the clownish features of blackface, are not depicted

 

[Xelor]

I could agree with your assessment of thisView attachment 67232269 But calling this one racist is a stretch especially since the clownish features of blackface, are not depictedView attachment 67232270

Well, that's a start....you're disregarding the basic derogatory nature of blackface itself, with or without the caricature...It's a difference of degrees -- not an existential difference in nature -- and it's one that's conceptually the same as that depicted in the following statement: The lesser of two evils is still evil.

 

[Slingshot Bob]

Well, that's a start....you're disregarding the basic derogatory nature of blackface itself, with or without the caricature...It's a difference of degrees -- not an existential difference in nature -- and it's one that's conceptually the same as that depicted in the following statement: The lesser of two evils is still evil.

I just don't cotton to seeing racism in every little thing. Call me old school on this one but I go by Webster's classic definition, I don't feel I am superior by virtue of race.

 

[Critter7r]

So the top one was not a Jockey? What is it then?

It's a caricature of a black servant coming to take the reins of one's horse, not a jockey. And the facial features are cartoonish and exaggerated, and offensive.

And painting the other one would be akin to whites wearing blackface so, still offensive. (Although, truthfully, it would depend on *how* it was painted black. If painted in an actual black skin tone, fine. But don't paint it gloss black with bright red lips).

 

[Critter7r]

I just don't cotton to seeing racism in every little thing. Call me old school on this one but I go by Webster's classic definition, I don't feel I am superior by virtue of race.

Wat you did there ...

 

[biff_poindexter]

People like you is why racism never dies.

Exactly, If people would stop noticing other people being racist, then racism will go away -- that is exactly what King did.

When he saw racism, he didn't say anything about it, he looked the other way. He didn't want to call attention to it.

For every rock that hit him the head, for every police dog that attacked a black kid -- they simply ignored it and it went away.

 

[biff_poindexter]

Preface:
I saw a video called "Kanye West Ignites a Debate About Racism." I don't care about West or what he says; aside from Noah's remarks, I don't know what he said, and his remarks aren't what I intend to here discuss. I only mention West because his name is in the rubric video's title.

Main Post:
Periodically, one encounters someone who were their brain on pinhead, it would roll around like a BB on a 6-lane highway. The people described in Roy Wood, Jr's segment are such people.

Below is pictured Louie Jones, Jr.'s home in New Richmond, Ohio.

​

Watch the video linked in the preface for a few more/more detailed images. One of the dolls is in blackface, not merely brown, and eating watermelon.

Jones, says he "ain't racial." The guy's three pickles shy of a quart, which may explain why he doesn't realize his little "vignette" is an homage to racism.

His neighbor, Tammy, is no better, "They went up a few of them at one time and then a couple more were added, but the flags have always flown, that's for our country." (Source)

[FONT=&]It's a "rebel flag. [/FONT][FONT=&]It's

Traditional racism in America is all but dead.

Go to any White Supremacist rally and you will see reporters covering the event outnumbering the participants.

The hysteria about racism is kept alive by Leftist wanting to politically profit from it. But in doing so they are dividing and damaging America worse than any Klansman could have ever dreamed.

Blatant racism is dead. Meaning the time when one can simply say "I hate n-words" is over, defeated by the civil rights movement.

However as the Southern Strategy showed us, the age of covert racism is alive and well in the world of coded language and dog whistle politics.

Any attempt to try to minimalize it or pretend people are wrong for noticing it, is how covert racism can fester back into being overt racism again.

 

[Xelor]

I just don't cotton to seeing racism in every little thing. Call me old school on this one but I go by Webster's classic definition, I don't feel I am superior by virtue of race.

An iconic symbol of race-based derision is no "little thing."


There are plenty of ways to honor black folks in statuary, and not one of them uses the imagery/symbolism of blackface. In an earlier post in this thread, I posted two images of 19th century African American jockeys. I did for a reason: When the country's most prestigious horse race, the Kentucky Derby, launched in 1875, 13 of the 15 jockeys were African-American. As Pellom McDaniels noted, "Blacks were part of the farms that raised [Derby] horses. They were responsible for caring for them, they trained them and of course they rode them. And so to have that first Kentucky Derby in 1875 have this great representation of black jockeys wouldn't have been uncommon. It was a fact.

Notwithstanding everyone of the time and in the Jim Crow era having routinely had some sort of interaction with blacks, even if just that of passing blacks on the street or encountering them as staff in homes, rather than depicting black jockeys in some sort of respectful form, "Jocko" creators and consumers opted to portray only the host of black skin, "bug eyes," big lips (in red no less, as if any black, or person, person has red lips), and a subservient posture. Compare and contrast that with the white jockey, which has hair, discernable facial features, proportionately depicted eyes (remember the eyes are the way to the soul), etc. Hell, even late 19th century American figuratives of animals depicted more authenticity than does "Jocko."

​

As the figures below indicate, a figure's merely being jet black doesn't make it be a pejorative "blackface" image. I've posted these images to illustrate that what is and is not a derogatory depiction is neither binary nor dependent on a single element. It's the "whole package" that makes it be or be not so.

This early kneeling slave, hand enameled in high temperature underglaze colors, is holding a book inscribed “bless god thank briton me no slave.” While not specifically identified as such, the early date of this ceramic figure must coincide with the British abolishment of the slave trade begun in 1792 and formally decreed in 1807.





In the above figural group, a slave exults in freedom as broken chains and whip lie on the ground. An open Bible rests at Britannia’s feet.​

St. Maarten's "Lady Liberty" by Theo Bonev

​

St. Maarten’s most famous sculpture is “Lady Liberty” by Bulgarian artist Theo Bonev in the Agrément roundabout. The lady in question is a full-bodied black woman, well into her adulthood -- still beautiful, despite being long overdue [a fitting allegory, IMO] -- who leads the way guided by the light that emanates from a gas lamp. Unveiled on July 12th 2007, on the 159th anniversary of the final abolishment of slavery in all French territories in 1848, this deeply symbolic work of art occupies a special place in the hearts of S’martiners, not least because the issue of slavery was further complicated on the island by the Dutch not signing up to end the exploitative practice until 1863. (Source)
​

Please tell me you are at least beginning to see how several of the statues above, despite being "jet black," are not "blackface," thus not pejorative.

 

[biff_poindexter]

So the top one was not a Jockey? What is it then?

I think this is the "ignorance" people are talking about. In this case, your ignorance of not knowing the difference. Doesn't make you racist, just makes you ignorant. So you either choose to educate yourself or remain ignorant