I’m not saying don’t destroy this guy, but don’t go all squishy. If Pontiac as a brand is racist, collectors and car sites shouldn’t get a pass. Go after them as well. Or is the outrage reserved for soft targets like small car dealers?
Trust me, Pontiac had no problem with this sign or the Pontiac dealer reps would have had it removed a long time ago.
Actually, we hear over and over in these fights that intent does NOT matter, only the feelings of the offended. That just justifies the “I don’t consider it offensive, so neither should you” defense. I’m sure these guys were thinking they were giving positive portrayals…friendly Indians welcoming you in. By their lights it shouldn’t be offensive…but it doesn’t matter to the offended people.
I’m not saying destroy this guy, I’m saying correct him/her. Just what is a pass? You are aware that Pontiac as a brand has been defunct since 2010? The times they are a-changin, the past is not.
Trust me, most US citizens had no problem with this sign or public pressure would have had it removed a long time ago. The times they are a-changin, the past is not.
There is definitely a difference in how commercial and non-commercial depictions are viewed in these situations & it is often brought up. Commercial/non-commercial is the distinction I highlighted & it exists.
If you’ve been hearing over and over again that there is one definitive factor to consider that can trump expression by anyone at anytime you may want to change the channel, because that is rarely the case.
If you don’t think there would be a difference among a large group of people over, say, an inaccurate tattoo of a ceremonial war bonnet on the arm of a dumb white kid and a car lot or a major corporation utilizing harmful stereotypes as nationwide branding then you’ve got another thing coming. Intent matters, Who matters, What matters, When matters, pretty much every definable aspect absolutely matters.
You think the tattoo should come off with sandpaper because the sign should come down? Because I don’t think so.
I’m not of the group being offended, ( I am offended, but am not of the group portrayed ) but I would not think of them so 2 dimensionally, that too is insulting. Claiming such an absolutist standpoint as “Intent doesn’t matter” on their behalf is to declare a large, diverse group of individuals who share common traits as incapable of reason, which is a disservice.
edit - & in case you weren’t aware "If you’re going to do this, you must/should also do this or you…) is a classic derailment in any of it’s many variances.
We will have this conversation later :). Saying a group of people should choose a political party, because if their race, is by definition racist. The example I gave was to illustrate pervasive racism that many progressives don’t recognize.
Let’s take this to a different thread (and I seriously respect your opinion and voice )
This is just saying “we’ll choose this isolated soft target, go after them, and then we’ve shown our nonracism” and ignoring all the larger issues. Call it absolutist if you will, but you’re essentially saying “it’s fine to be racist…unless we realize it’s safe and easy to go after you”.
I agree that you did read the last paragraph of my last post and the edit of my initial reply to you. You don’t need to repeat yourself.
I understand that you have a meter stick that only measures infinity and aught. When nothing measures up to infinity it resolves to aught. Aught means the measured are complicit & therefore racists by resolve or the lack thereof. Very impressive, you will never need to cut a board by Aught inches, you will never need or be able to measure twice, so you will not cut once. Your meter stick is so useful.
It is no secret that the republican party has a long standing history of racism, classism, sexism, homophobia, and religious intolerance of non christian religions.
The Voter ID laws that they are currently pushing are refereed to by the NAACP as the New Jim Crow laws.
While the GOP has a good track record of getting people to vote against their own interests, she is quite smart and savvy, so it isn’t unreasonable to wonder why she picked a party that has and continues to be against the rights of people of both her ethnicity and gender. Wondering such a thing is neither racist nor sexist in any way whatsoever.
This is a bit disingenuous. The original story was intended to be about an East Indian boy, but the illustrations in later editions tended strongly towards American black stereotypes (coal-black skin, bulging red lips, distinctive clothes, etc.), and “Sambo” was a term for a person with African heritage in the Americas for a couple of centuries before the book.
One last comment, lest falcor eats all this for being off topic.
Expecting a person to make a judgment, like their political party, based solely on their race is racist. Full stop. It is the same kind of low level racism (noble savage, math prone Asian, etc) that many people ignore or even encourage. A black woman has every right to not be questioned if she chooses to be republican because of the color of her skin.
Well, you’ve selectively picked one sentence out of a conversation. The conversation specifically included exactly the point you’re saying isn’t in that sentence. It’s implied in the same post, even.
So no, I don’t think I was being disingenuous at all, although perhaps I am guilty of bad composition. Me write pretty one day, you betcha.
See that is where you go wrong. Wondering why anyone would ever choose to align with a political party that that votes against the interests of their (race/gender/economic class/religion/whatever) is not whatever-ist. full stop. They were wondering why someone would side with a whatever-ist, not being a whatever-ist themselves. The original person was wondering why she was part of a political party that has a longstanding history of racism, not making a negative racial judgment against her in any way shape or form. They weren’t judging her based on her race, they were wondering why she would side with people who judge people based on race, and have a history of discriminating against her race specifically. The difference is HUGE.
Once you’ve encountered real racism you’d never ever conflate the puzzlement of an individual about why someone was voting against their own interests, with actual real discrimination, repressions, or racism. That is insulting, imho, and belittles the actual issues.
Also, I think @Falcor won’t let the nothing eat these comments, because the discussion of what racism is and isn’t is very much on topic for this thread. (if i’m wrong, please let me know falcor thx. )
The black Republicans I know would argue that the Democrat party is against the interests of their race. So while one may feel that way, other justifiably feel another.
What specifically did they say when you asked them? In which ways did they claim the dems were against the interests of their race?
Both parties have pretty clear and long track records of ways they’ve voted. They might have other reasons for choosing the GOP, but call me highly skeptical that they claimed that the dems were against the interests of their race…citation? sample size? reasons cited? or is this all third party hypothetical/anecdotal guesswork on your part?
One of the more common issues being discussed in recent GOP conventions is how to reverse this trend and get more minority voters that they’ve traditionally disenfranchised. This is a known and acknowledged issue within the party. I guarantee that no minority republican who is even remotely politically aware is unaware of this longstanding issue.
Putting the LONG history of racism in the GOP aside, this is an analysis of both parties current political stances in regard to racial issues:
http://naacp.3cdn.net/c24ec2902c6a11de8b_v7m6b8hen.pdf
Current political party affiliation breakdown among black voters:
Some more reading on the subject as it currently stands…the picture is much more dire if you look at the historical facts…but even a modern up to date analysis is pretty grim.
…but of course this is all pretty well established, and was not the point of the original discussion. the point was that wondering why someone of a certain ethnicity would side with a party with a (perceived) bias against the persons ethnicity, is not racist. that is what was being discussed. (same goes for gender/class/religion/etc.)
Keep in mind that the Republicans are the party that freed the slaves, and that the Democrats are the party that bloodily opposed Equal Rights until halfway through the 20th century. You need to stop making statements as though the current situation has always been the norm, or you’ll get all that history dragged in, which I don’t think advances the conversation. Be clear you’re talking about now - since the Democrats have a longer record of supporting racism than the Republicans do. Sorry for the digression.
Yes, it is $whatever-ist if the basis of your assumption comes from the $whatever. That is how racism works. That is seriously textbook racism. If you use $whatever (i.e. race) to define the individual and what you think they should do, not what motivates the individual them self, then we have racism.
look, there are crappy people in the republican party. but even with the stats you posted the individual agency to determine if you are a member of a group shouldn’t be shot down by your skin color or heritage.
God knows, the Republicans still love to identify themselves as “the party of Lincoln.” It’s true, we should try to limit such identifications to within the last generation or two in order to stay remotely relevant.
EXACTLY…no one is defining the individual at all. No one made any attempt to define her, they simply were wondering why she’d vote/side in a way that they perceive to be against her own interests. That is NOT racism, and does not fit ANY of the definitions. PERIOD.
No one was “shooting down” her choice, or saying that she couldn’t have a choice, or in any way inferring anything whatsoever about her as a person. They were simply expressing disbelief in what they perceived as a conflict of interest in regard to a choice she made, and at no point made any judgement about her as a person. It is absolutely in no conceivable way racism, and to conflate it with racism is very insulting to people who actually have to face real racism on a daily basis and belittles the real issue.
I don’t know how much more clearly I can differentiate the difference between this and actual racism.
Fair enough, that is a good point, and you are correct, i was wrong to do that. I am aware of the origins of the republican party and the role the confederates played in the democratic party at the time. It was unfair of me to paint with such a broad brush the entire history of both parties.
I should have limited my statements to the last 75 years, the 50/60s forward. Thanks for the correction and reminding me of how much each party has radically changed. Cheers.
I don’t think anyone said that. Rather, the suggestion was that it’s unusual for people who aren’t white to choose a political party that’s full of racists.
sigh
okay, my own parents who believes black people shouldn’t be repulicans uttered that phrase. and i used that snippet of an anecdote to illustrate the endemic racism that affects many progressives share–especially in oregon and who mean well.
as another commenter pointed out they have experience more racism in this area of the country than others, and it is because of this exact sentiment: if you are x, you must believe y. and that is actual. racism.
