@Juan Viejo2:
Racism is when you do anything to a person of color or other ethnicity that you wouldn't do to someone of your own color or ethnicity. That's it. Bottom line. Racism is when you ask more of a person of color, than you would of a white person. Racism is when you point out the faults of a person of one color, that you would ignore in someone of your color or race.
Racism is the political doctrine that those belonging to the dominant class (that is, there is more of a particular race or tribe of people) are inherently superior to others in character, in abilities, in intellectual achievements.
One stark example is when one group (a white majority) pursued a policy of enslaving another group (an African (black) minority) that began in the early 1600s and had become a legal institution at the founding of the US through the slave trade until the end of the Civil War in 1875. Another example is the ethnic cleansing during the atrocities that occurred over 100 days in East Africa (Rwanda) back in 1994 where one ethnic group (the Hima majority) engaged in an organized massacre of an other ethnic group (the Tutsi minority that had been chosen by colonial powers to become the ruling class in Rwanda) as was depicted in "Hotel Rwanda," a 2004 movie starting Don Cheadle (one of the few movies I actually saw).
Those subscribing to the belief that their belonging to the dominant class are "better" than those in the minority is what gave rise to racism, the sense of racial superiority of one group over the other group, along with the false implications of good character being associated with those in the majority and bad character with those in the minority. Anyone in the majority that is more likely than not to treat others that they perceive as being, not just different than, but inferior in comparison with themselves, and for whom raising questions as to the character, abilities or intellectual achievements of someone in the minority because of their race isn't viewed as offensive but as copacetic to them, is a racist.
I agree with you, @Juan Viejo2, that it is racist when one does anything to a person of another race that he or she wouldn't do to someone of another race. For example, it is racist when someone white asks more of a person of color than they would of a white person or when someone Hispanic asks more of someone raced black or white than they would of another Hispanic. It is racist when one points out the faults of a person of a different race than themselves while giving a pass to someone of their own race.
@Juan Viejo2 wrote:
Instead of referring to Denzel Washington as a movie star, you refer to him as a "black/Negro/African-American movie actor." You're a racist.
Or, is it possible that the individual that makes such a statement is at least culpable of making a racist statement without their realizing that this statement carries racial implications.
Instead of referring to Fred "in the accounting department," you refer to him as "Fred, the African-American, in Accounting." You're a racist.
Or, is it possible that the individual that makes such a statement is at least culpable of making a racist statement without their realizing that this statement carries racial implications.
When Katrina devastated New Orleans, hundreds of people fled across a bridge to a small town for help and safety. Police, mostly white, turned them back at gun-point "because the town was overwhelmed with Big Easy residents already." Right. Those early arrivals, mostly white, who drove across in their cars earlier that day were given shelter. The poor blacks who tried to walk over were turned back. The police and townspeople were racists.
I'm going to have to pass on this one, but I do recall that back in September of 1995, my confronting many folks that had embraced in their posts a word that was perverted by media sources at the time when referring to Louisianans displaced fellow American citizens that were survivors of Hurricane Katrina as "refugees," which word was used as a synonym for the "n-word."
Following the health care debate regarding the Health Insurance Reform Act signed into law on March 23, 2010, when many Americans had taken to the streets in protest of "ObamaCare," a pejorative used by a majority of whites seeking to "take my country back" from "the blacks" (an expression that Trump has used to describe his relationship with blacks) or the Muslims that some of them believe to be illegitimately occupying "their" White House, proudly voiced their sentiments on the "Kill the Bill" signs and placards depicted POTUS Obama on them and charged him with being (among other things) a "Nazi," "Socialist," "Fascist," "Marxist" and "Communist," all of these also being used as synonyms by whites for the "n-word."
When then-First Lady Hillary Clinton heath care reform package was introduced in 1993 by POTUS Clinton during his first term of office, none of the vitriol that accompanied the health insurance reform legislation that became law in 2010 was voiced by protestors that carried either signs or placards in 1993, even though the bill died the following year (in 1994), which suggests racism as what drove dissent against the health insurance reform that became law in 2010, unless there is some other explanation for why it was POTUS Clinton wasn't picketed or asked to produce his college transcripts. I believe the media discovered that before earning a MBA at Harvard Business School in 1975, POTUS Bush (43) was admitted to Yale under its legacy program because of affirmative action in that he was a third-generation Bush, where in 1968,.he earned a BA in history, but I don't recall that he was required to produce his college transcripts either.
President Obama has been subjected to close scrutiny over his birth certificate, where he went to school, how he got into Harvard, and all of his associates - whether they were supporters or just acquaintances. He is still under fire daily over every little detail of his life.... That is racist pure and simple. Why?
Senator John McCain was born in Panama, in the US controlled canal zone. Did anyone question his citizenship? No.
Many pundits believe that if Senator John McCain has won the presidency in 2008, McCain, who, as you say, was born on a naval base in the Panama Canal Zone to parents that were both citizens at the time, but the nebulous "natural born citizen" designation that qualifies one to become president of the United States is not the only criteria, for Section 1, Article II, of the US Constitution states that "no Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States ... shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years."
Now this latter designation applies both to anyone born in one of the 50 ratified states as well as to any of the territories held by the US, such as Puerto Rico, which is a US territory, and includes Panama and the state of Hawaii, and so, just as my state of California came to be admitted to statehood as the 31st state on September 9, 1850, Hawaii came to be admitted to statehood some 109 years later as the 50th state on August 21, 1959, meaning if POTUS Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, which is US soil, or in California, which is also US soil, at any time after August 21, 1959, then, he would be, without question, a US citizen "eligible to the Office of President."
Considering that POTUS Obama was born on August 4, 1961, almost two years after Hawaii's admission to statehood, and the fact that there is no mention anywhere in the Constitution of the requirement that a citizen desirous of becoming the president needing to produce anything more than his or her birth certificate so that the candidate might prove that he or she is a citizen at least 35 years of age, such "scrutiny" would seem to be an overreach.
The "requirement" that POTUS Obama should produce academic transcripts that might explain how it was he came to earned a BA in political science at Columbia University in 1983 and graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1991 would seem to question Obama's character, abilities or intellectual achievements because of his race ought to be viewed as offensive, but because it's copacetic to those making such requests, this could brand those seeking Obama's "papers" as racists.
@moshe wrote:
I don't think Trump is a racist. He is trying to gain a political advantage by catching President Obama (who happens to be Black) in a "lie". Lying is not a problem of race, but one caused by "poor character", IMO.
@BizzyBee wrote:
And what is the "lie" that Obama has committed?
You didn't really write that you believe all Trump was just "trying to gain a political advantage by catching President Obama (who happens to be Black) in a 'lie' ... caused by poor character,' did you, Mr. @moshe? Hmm. How would you interpret the following?
Anyone in the majority that is more likely than not to treat others that they perceive as being, not just different than, but inferior in comparison with themselves, and for whom raising questions as to the character, abilities or intellectual achievements of someone in the minority because of their race isn't viewed as offensive but as copacetic to them, is a racist.
@moshe wrote:
Was Obama being racist back in 2008?- -"Barack Obama got an ovation when he recently stood in a Chicago pulpit and scolded parents for giving their children cold Popeye's chicken for breakfast, according to The New York Times".
Nobody complained about that comment being racist- Now, if Trump had said that!!!
@BizzyBee wrote:
Let's see - President [Obama] scolds parents for feeding their children cold, greasy, breaded, processed chicken parts for breakfast (in the context of a national health epidemic of diabetes among children). I wouldn't call that racist - I'd call that responsible.
<smile>
@JeffT:
I do not know if he is racist.
@Terra Incognita:
Jeff; whether or not Donald Trump is being racist is irrelevant. He is definitely a demagogue who panders to the prejudices of his audience, which is substantially racist. Everything else that you brought up is irrelevant to the issue of Obama.
@No Room For George:
I haven't [gone] through this entire thread, plus I said my piece on Trump in the other thread, but I don't think Trump is racist per say. At least not in the KKKish view of the term, or even the mom/pop occasional nigger joke behind closed doors description of being racist. What I do believe is he's race bating in a subtle manner by pandering to certain elements within the crowd of Obama haters. I can't call the Tea Party racist because there's black Tea Partiers....
One thing that bugs me though, is his language. I thought that was completely inappropriate, and it actually played to my JW upbringing because I swear people are getting cruder and more [vulgar] in public than ever before.
I don't believe your "upbringing" as one of Jehovah's Witnesses ever included the "occasional nigger joke," did it? You make not like Trump's language, but what are your language here? As I asked @moshe, I might ask how it is you would interpret the following?
Anyone in the majority that is more likely than not to treat others that they perceive as being, not just different than, but inferior in comparison with themselves, and for whom raising questions as to the character, abilities or intellectual achievements of someone in the minority because of their race isn't viewed as offensive but as copacetic to them, is a racist.
@No Room For George:
I believe Trump is playing on the conservative crowd's inability to narrow down a viable candidate to run against Obama come election time. You want to know the crazy part to me? Call me nuts, but he has no intention on running....
You may be right, but I don't care what Trump does. You learned as lone of Jehovah's Witnesses -- or maybe you didn't! -- that when the Israelites insisted having on a human king that they then became as culpable as a community for the decisions, wrong or wrong, as did the king that ruled over them. This same community responsibility falls to those who today elect these corrupt and immoral politicians to rule over them.
Whether it be bullets or the ballot box, when these wicked leaders decide to shed more than just a little blood, they send the people over whom they rule to fight these national battles for them, even though there's been a "moratorium" on shedding man's blood since Noah and his family left the ark on Mt. Ararat. Not just Christendom, but former Jehovah's Witnesses, too, just close their eyes to the rainbow covenant regarding blood that God gave to Noah, and consequently much blood is on their hands going back as far as Abel. (Genesis 9:5, 6; Matthew 23:34, 35) Life is sacred to God and blood represents life, so all mankind -- and we all live under human governments -- is equally bloodguilty before God. Neither of these men -- Trump or Obama -- is capable of saving anyone!
The only way that any of us can avoid being held to account for these gross violations of God's covenant regarding the sanctity of blood -- whether we should personally have taken a life in war or by some other means, or we become complicit through the decisions made by those that rule over us -- is to request a clean conscience from God through dedication and baptism based on the atonement ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus, so that you and I might be permitted entrance into the antitypical city of refuge where our High Priest administers through the congregations priestly services that are beneficial to us. (1 Peter 3:20, 31)
There are many Christian churches today, but hardly any of them is warning folks about their need to find safety in this city of refuge for all mankind is guilty of bloodguilt. Those that would disregard this provision of the ransom and would allow their consciences to become defiled would, in effect, have left the protection of the "city of refuge," where they will be exposed to, and thereby suffer, the vengeance of Jesus' executional forces (the "avenger of death") at Armageddon.
@james_woods
This thread is obviously about politics, not about race or racism....
I still have not heard a single thing the Trump said that was identifiable as truly racist.
The OP (@OUTLAW) asked the following question:
Were Trump`s comments Racist?
Maybe the OP had a political bent in mind when he posed this question, but it seemed to be one designed to elicit opinions from those that may have heard Donald Trump's recent comments as to whether they thought any of them to be racist. At least this is how I understand his question. That being said, if the man should have deliberately made these statements in order to pander to those in his audience that find it objectionable that a black man currently sits in the Oval Office, whose racial prejudices construe this "development" as a case of their country having been "taken away" from them by someone that shouldn't be sitting there, then I'm sure that many would construe Trump's comments as being racist in nature.
@moshe:
George Bush was dogged in the 2000 Presidential campaign by accusations that he never completed all his Military Air Guard Reserve training and was given preference ahead of 100 others to get into the reserves and avoided going to Vietnam- the absence of Bush's key military pay records was a fishy story to many.
And you bring this up why? What bearing -- if any -- does any training that Bush may have engaged in before becoming president have to do with whether or not Trump's comments the other day were racist in nature? Did you not read enough of this thread when you posted earlier to know that this thread is about the propriety of requesting a sitting president's academic records -- his "papers" so to speak, as it such were needed to legitimize his presidency? If it feel you did (read enough), then I'd say you were mistaken and needed to read a bit more of this thread so that you might then figure out what folks are discussing in this thread, because I'd say that this last comment of yours is way off-topic.
@djeggnog
+ 
