Birtherism 2.0: The Totally-Not-Racist Party Strikes Again

[Mr Spinkles]

That needs addressing....
If you'd carefully read my posts, you'd have seen criticism
of the OP's faulty reasoning that what Trump said is racist.
(You were even unaware of what he said, yet took that side.)
A problem: Your ilk will criticize him without careful thought.
Then when called out for lack of reason & evidence, you
resort to the accusation of defending him. This ad hom
bespeaks your failed argument.

Sorry, I do want to give you the last word here, but just to clarify:

1. As I said before, I was aware of what Trump said. If you thought I wasn't, then either I miscommunicated, or you misunderstood. Just to be clear.

2. Correction accepted. You weren't "defending Trump". You were critiquing the criticism of what Trump said (is that fair?). The points I made earlier still stand with that correction, but happy to make it.

My issue is you seem super sensitive and demand rigorous precision and evidence when people criticize Trump's words in the OP "without careful thought" ... that's great ... but, not so concerned about the lack of "careful thought" when Trump insinuates our first black VP candidate is not truly American, which is the topic of the OP ... after he spent years insinuating our first black president wasn't truly American. After he's tweeted bizarre, factually incorrect stats about crime that make blacks look like criminals. After he's called African nations ***hole countries and told American congresswomen of color to "go back where you came from", and insinuated they. After he called a black congressman and civil rights activist's district "rat infested". After he declined to praise civil rights icon John Lewis after his death. After he sympathized with white protesters in Michigan but violently suppressed BLM protesters outside the White House for an absurd photo-op with a Bible. Etc., etc. Does Trump meet your standard of "careful thought"?

As a general observation: I have noticed over the years, that people who don't want / can't defend the way Trump behaves, often direct a lot of energy into critiquing his critics. To me, that's great - it's always good to be a skeptic and second guess things. But doing this serves, intended or not, to enable and provide cover for Trump. The Wall Street Journal op-eds are a terrific example of this, incidentally (I can provide examples but won't waste time on that so we don't get side tracked). If we just enjoy being super precise about differentiating a "racist" statement vs. a merely "hateful" statement against a black woman ... and we insist on everyone employing "careful thought" when they make insinuations about others ... then it seems to me, that Trump's words come first, and provide by far the biggest deviation from those high standards. Thus, it confuses me when I see folks consistently quickly skip over that in order to fine-tune the words of his critics. Seems like a double standard / strange allocation of energy, to me.

Moreover, your criticism of Trump is trivial & superficial,
generally just labeling him with tags like "racist", & without
supporting them. But I've given him severe issue based
criticism, eg, flirting with war on Iran, bad pandemic leadership.

But, Revolt, serious question: do I need to support the label that he is a racist? Is that a label you disagree with? I would be happy to provide support, but why should we waste time on that unless it's a label you disagree with? In most discussions, there are a set of mutually agreed upon assumptions that we share about the world that do not require support. Then there are other assumptions we don't agree on - those are the ones that require support.

Remember when I asked whether you agree that he is a racist? You never answered. You just said "I never said he wasn't a racist". (Correct me if I'm mistaken.)

If you are no longer "never saying he isn't a racist", and you now dispute the label, then I would be happy to provide support. Let me know.

Tangentially: I commend your issues-based criticism of Trump. IMO, in a country like the US with a troubled (but improving) history of race relations, the way this President behaves regarding people of color deserves to make the cut as an "issue", along with wars and pandemics (notwithstanding how extremely important the issues of wars and pandemics are). For him it's a consistent egregious pattern (a pattern with plenty of support, which I don't need to show you at this moment, since you never said he wasn't racist). So, I disagree that my criticism of how he engages with people of color, and specifically what he said in the OP, is not an "issues-based" criticism. I accept and acknowledge you are critical of Trump on things you think are more important (wars, pandemics).

 

[Revoltingest]

Sorry, I do want to give you the last word here, but just to clarify:

1. As I said before, I was aware of what Trump said. If you thought I wasn't, then either I miscommunicated, or you misunderstood. Just to be clear.

2. Correction accepted. You weren't "defending Trump". You were critiquing the criticism of what Trump said (is that fair?). The points I made earlier still stand with that correction, but happy to make it.

My issue is you seem super sensitive and demand rigorous precision and evidence when people criticize Trump's words in the OP "without careful thought" ... that's great ... but, not so concerned about the lack of "careful thought" when Trump insinuates our first black VP candidate is not truly American, which is the topic of the OP ... after he spent years insinuating our first black president wasn't truly American. After he's tweeted bizarre, factually incorrect stats about crime that make blacks look like criminals. After he's called African nations ***hole countries and told American congresswomen of color to "go back where you came from", and insinuated they. After he called a black congressman and civil rights activist's district "rat infested". After he declined to praise civil rights icon John Lewis after his death. After he sympathized with white protesters in Michigan but violently suppressed BLM protesters outside the White House for an absurd photo-op with a Bible. Etc., etc. Does Trump meet your standard of "careful thought"?

As a general observation: I have noticed over the years, that people who don't want / can't defend the way Trump behaves, often direct a lot of energy into critiquing his critics. To me, that's great - it's always good to be a skeptic and second guess things. But doing this serves, intended or not, to enable and provide cover for Trump. The Wall Street Journal op-eds are a terrific example of this, incidentally (I can provide examples but won't waste time on that so we don't get side tracked). If we just enjoy being super precise about differentiating a "racist" statement vs. a merely "hateful" statement against a black woman ... and we insist on everyone employing "careful thought" when they make insinuations about others ... then it seems to me, that Trump's words come first, and provide by far the biggest deviation from those high standards. Thus, it confuses me when I see folks consistently quickly skip over that in order to fine-tune the words of his critics. Seems like a double standard / strange allocation of energy, to me.

But, Revolt, serious question: do I need to support the label that he is a racist? Is that a label you disagree with? I would be happy to provide support, but why should we waste time on that unless it's a label you disagree with? In most discussions, there are a set of mutually agreed upon assumptions that we share about the world that do not require support. Then there are other assumptions we don't agree on - those are the ones that require support.

Remember when I asked whether you agree that he is a racist? You never answered. You just said "I never said he wasn't a racist". (Correct me if I'm mistaken.)

If you are no longer "never saying he isn't a racist", and you now dispute the label, then I would be happy to provide support. Let me know.

Tangentially: I commend your issues-based criticism of Trump. IMO, in a country like the US with a troubled (but improving) history of race relations, the way this President behaves regarding people of color deserves to make the cut as an "issue", along with wars and pandemics (notwithstanding how extremely important the issues of wars and pandemics are). For him it's a consistent egregious pattern (a pattern with plenty of support, which I don't need to show you at this moment, since you never said he wasn't racist). So, I disagree that my criticism of how he engages with people of color, and specifically what he said in the OP, is not an "issues-based" criticism. I accept and acknowledge you are critical of Trump on things you think are more important (wars, pandemics).

Goodness gracious, that's a lot to read.
I think you & I have beaten this poor dead horse enuf.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Goodness gracious, that's a lot to read.
I think you & I have beaten this poor dead horse enuf.

Thanks. We can't all write 50 posts a day. Agreed.

 

[Callisto]

Cruz, an obviously white man, is accepted by some (Pubs),
but not by others (Dems). But do you really know what
Europeans think of him?

Where is it established GOP accept his as white but Dems don't?

 

[Revoltingest]

Where is it established GOP accept his as white but Dems don't?

I spoke of general acceptance, not views on his race.

 

[Callisto]

I spoke of general acceptance, not views on his race.

No, you wrote:

Cruz, an obviously white man, is accepted by some (Pubs),
but not by others (Dems). But do you really know what
Europeans think of him?

General acceptance of him as a person and calibre of politician (job performance) has nothing to do with whether he's socially accepted among whites. If you meant this, there would be no reason to reference his skin tone.

It's also deflection to ask "what Europeans think of him" when you know perfectly well that "white" in America and in this discussion, pertains to white Americans, refers to those who are accepted as being of European descent. Obama is of white European descent but isn't light enough to be accepted among other whites who are. Cruz is lighter and downplays his Hispanic heritage to facilitate being socially accepted among white Americans as "one of them", as you have reinforced time and again by declaring he's as white as you. Working class white Hispanics without his political power are still designated as Hispanic, not "one of them" kind of white.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, you wrote:

My original intent was just as I clarified.
Alas, my language is sometimes confusing.

It's also deflection to ask "what Europeans think of him".....

Deflection?
I responded to your post (#277) about Europeans accepting him.

It seems we're talking past each other.
Responding further to such claims would be unproductive.

 

[OtherSheep]

The newest talking point among many on the Right is that Kamala Harris

Now, we have a black female VP nominee just announced, and where does the Right go? Right back to the same racist tropes they're so familiar with.

“Donald Harris, a Stanford University economics professor, revealed in 2018 that his grandmother was a descendant of Hamilton Brown, the namesake of Brown’s Town in northern Jamaica.
“My roots go back, within my lifetime, to my paternal grandmother Miss Chrishy (née Christiana Brown, descendant of Hamilton Brown who is on record as plantation and slave owner and founder of Brown’s Town),” he wrote in a post for Jamaica Global. …
A research archive of Jamaican records indicate that at one point in 1817, Hamilton Brown owned scores of slaves. The majority were brought in from Africa, though he also owned many Creole slaves."
Report: Kamala Harris's Ancestors Owned Slaves, Too

 

[Left Coast]

“Donald Harris, a Stanford University economics professor, revealed in 2018 that his grandmother was a descendant of Hamilton Brown, the namesake of Brown’s Town in northern Jamaica.
“My roots go back, within my lifetime, to my paternal grandmother Miss Chrishy (née Christiana Brown, descendant of Hamilton Brown who is on record as plantation and slave owner and founder of Brown’s Town),” he wrote in a post for Jamaica Global. …
A research archive of Jamaican records indicate that at one point in 1817, Hamilton Brown owned scores of slaves. The majority were brought in from Africa, though he also owned many Creole slaves."
Report: Kamala Harris's Ancestors Owned Slaves, Too

Uh huh. And so...?

 

[ecco]

“Donald Harris, a Stanford University economics professor,
...
A research archive of Jamaican records indicate that at one point in 1817, Hamilton Brown owned scores of slaves. The majority were brought in from Africa, though he also owned many Creole slaves."
Report: Kamala Harris's Ancestors Owned Slaves, Too

Fact check: Kamala Harris is “a cop whose family owned slaves in Jamaica” claim is missing context

These in-depth Fact Checks by Snopes and Politifact (here) have determined that while there is no clear evidence to prove Kamala Harris is a descendant of slave owners, it is likely that she is a descendant of both slaves and slave owners.

As explained by the Atlantic (here), “the overwhelming majority of African Americans have white male ancestors, largely because of white male slave owners who raped Black female slaves.” ​

Note the last sentence - highlighted.

Many descendants of slave Mary Hemmings want to be recognized as being descendants of Thomas Jefferson - President and Slave owner.

 

[OtherSheep]

These in-depth Fact Checks by Snopes
​

​

Track the story to its source. Don't expect Snopes to be unbiased.

"My roots go back, within my lifetime, to my paternal grandmother Miss Chrishy (née Christiana Brown, descendant of Hamilton Brown who is on record as plantation and slave owner and founder of Brown’s Town)"

KAMALA HARRIS’ JAMAICAN HERITAGE
KAMALA HARRIS’ JAMAICAN HERITAGE - UPDATED - 14.01.2019 - Jamaica Global Online

83 comments...
"Obummer February 23, 2019 at 4:09 pm
So Kamala Harris is the descendant of slave owners? She’s done."

And there's information in those comments about Kamala herself.

 

[metis]

So Kamala Harris is the descendant of slave owners? She’s done."

You seem to be unaware of the fact that Jamaica was one of islands used in the slave trade to break them prior to being sold.

History of Jamaica - Wikipedia

Also, this from Reuters: Fact check: Misleading meme featuring five claims about Kamala Harris

BTW, if one were so much emphasizing honesty, then they certainly would have a far greater problem with Trump.

 

[OtherSheep]

You seem to be unaware of the fact that Jamaica was one of islands used in the slave trade to break them prior to being sold.

History of Jamaica - Wikipedia

Also, this from Reuters: Fact check: Misleading meme featuring five claims about Kamala Harris

So? what does that have to do with Kamala's family owning slaves?

reuters.com/article...indians-erect-banners-pray-for-kamala-harris-to-win-u-s-election

Did someone force Reuters to endorse Kamala? or is their bias showing.
[Someone ought to tell the Indians that Satan offered the kingdoms of the world to Jesus... meaning, it was in his power to do so. As far as I can tell, it still is.]

BTW, if one were so much emphasizing honesty, then they certainly would have a far greater problem with Trump.

Same problem, different day.

Churchill ''Zionism Vs Bolshevism; Struggle For The Soul Of The Jewish People'' 1920

 

[Mr Spinkles]

​

Track the story to its source. Don't expect Snopes to be unbiased.

"My roots go back, within my lifetime, to my paternal grandmother Miss Chrishy (née Christiana Brown, descendant of Hamilton Brown who is on record as plantation and slave owner and founder of Brown’s Town)"

KAMALA HARRIS’ JAMAICAN HERITAGE
KAMALA HARRIS’ JAMAICAN HERITAGE - UPDATED - 14.01.2019 - Jamaica Global Online

83 comments...
"Obummer February 23, 2019 at 4:09 pm
So Kamala Harris is the descendant of slave owners? She’s done."

And there's information in those comments about Kamala herself.

Other Sheep, I have a question for you.

Are you raising the question of Kamala's ancestry, and whether it includes slave owners, because it matters to you? Or, is it because you think it matters to people who plan to vote for her?

This is not a trick question. I am just curious. I suspect you have some subconscious racial angst that you are projecting onto others .... but I could be wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

Fact check: Kamala Harris is “a cop whose family owned slaves in Jamaica” claim is missing context

These in-depth Fact Checks by Snopes and Politifact (here) have determined that while there is no clear evidence to prove Kamala Harris is a descendant of slave owners, it is likely that she is a descendant of both slaves and slave owners.

As explained by the Atlantic (here), “the overwhelming majority of African Americans have white male ancestors, largely because of white male slave owners who raped Black female slaves.” ​

Note the last sentence - highlighted.

Many descendants of slave Mary Hemmings want to be recognized as being descendants of Thomas Jefferson - President and Slave owner.

For the record.....
I don't hold against her anything any of her ancestors did.
Even if she were the illegit child of Richard M Nixon &
Typhoid Mary & Cersei Lannister, she made her own way
in this world.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Uh huh. And so...?

I feel like when people on the Right answer a question about someone on the Left’s racial identity that no one asked, they are telling on themselves a little.

It seems to stem from a zero-sum-game mindset of race relations where promoting the ancestors of slaves can only come at the cost of the ancestors of slave owners; where the first black president cannot also be white; where black lives can’t matter without diminishing white lives; where kneeling in front of the American flag can’t be respectful, and removing a Confederate flag can’t also preserve history.

To see people with such a mindset project that onto others, is a little revealing.

 

[Stevicus]

the illegit child of Richard M Nixon &
Typhoid Mary & Cersei Lannister

That must have been a fun night for all of them.

 

[metis]

Did someone force Reuters to endorse Kamala? or is their bias showing.

Actually Reuters is considered to be one of the most reliable news services, but then none is perfect.

Churchill ''Zionism Vs Bolshevism; Struggle For The Soul Of The Jewish People'' 1920

What does this have to do with the topic under discussion?

The topic of the OP deals with the use of birtherism against Harris, which replicates Trump's use of birtherism for seven straight years against Obama, and that is blatantly racist. Isn't that repugnant to you?

 

[metis]

[Someone ought to tell the Indians that Satan offered the kingdoms of the world to Jesus... meaning, it was in his power to do so. As far as I can tell, it still is.]

What in the world does this have to do with what's being talked about?

 

[OtherSheep]

What in the world does this have to do with what's being talked about?

How many people DON'T stray from the OP... on every thread on the forum. Or should I follow the thin blue line arrows back up the thread to see what trips your trigger?

[BTW, if one were so much emphasizing honesty, then they certainly would have a far greater problem with Trump.]
Actually Reuters is considered to be one of the most reliable news services, but then none is perfect.

What does this have to do with the topic under discussion?

The topic of the OP deals with the use of birtherism against Harris, which replicates Trump's use of birtherism for seven straight years against Obama, and that is blatantly racist. Isn't that repugnant to you?

[Considered by whom? Everyone? Doubtful. And please don't point me to a poll, because the only people polled are known for what they will say. And out of those polled, how many are counted. Get group opinion isn't of interest to to me.]

The difference between Trump and Biden/Harris is the exact same thing Churchill wrote about, IMO.

____________
"A strange game.The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?"--War Games