Racist accusations just a political strategy

[AAFitz]

Its because the word monkey has been morphed into a racial epithet, and now can be considered racist in certain usages. And that usage is certainly when one is referring to a black person.

I agree that one can used the word monkey and not be racist, but because it has been so widely used as a racist term, so many times, and for so long, that it has become racist to use it in many situations.

So you're allowing the racists to win the argument? When individuals are allowed to twist the meaning of words into something degrading of a person based on their race, those individuals win the argument every time. It's only when people stop looking at everything through the lens of race that racists lose their influence. When I read that poster, I immediately thought about how it meant that a person is blindly spending money. It just so happens that since the intended individual is black, everything has to be viewed through a lens of racism. Why doesn't everybody take off their racial glasses and look at the actual policies of the president?

No. Im not allowing anyone to win or lose. Im posting my opinions on the subject. If you happened to overlook the racial overtones of the poster, thats great, however, to suggest they are not there is quite another thing. To argue they are not there and intentional is past that. Its one thing to argue that that poster could be made without racist intent, but quite another to actually say you believe it was not. Do you honestly think the poster was naive of the monkey=racial slur and means no reference to Obama as a monkey? I mean, I can argue its possible thats the too, even woodruff gave that a try, but I sure couldnt possibly argue I thought the maker of the poster didnt have racist intent when he drew that monkey next to obamas name, and wrote that slogan on it.

The point here is that the poster was not as much about the economics of the situation, as to be a racial slur in hopes of furthering some economic beliefs by equating Obamas race as inferior to his economic policy. It doesnt just so happen that the person is black and that the term monkey and a monkey picture is used, It is 100% because of it that it is used. For me, its so obvious that its ridiculous, and its not that we need to take our racial glasses off, but that you are wearing filted ones, which perhaps make it invisible to you. I will say, that Im refreshed to believe you might actually believe this wasnt meant as racist, because at first I assumed you knew full well that it was, and was defending it despite that fact, which is why I was quite frankly sickened by your post. However, I still think you are ignoring or not seeing the purposeful racism that the poster is purposefully meaning to continue.

More importantly, if the main issue really is economics and changing the spending habits, than would it simply not be better to say avoid drawing a picture of a monkey and using the word monkey when referring to a policy by a black president. I mean, you cant possibly be suggesting you think that poster was innocent of knowing that it would be perceived as racist, and made it because exactly because it would be.

In the end, if your concern is actually trying to change policy and effect positive change, perhaps the best way to do that would be to suggest idiots like this avoid obvious racial epithets in their messages, so that a discussion on the actual topic might actually be possible. But throwing racially charged words and phrases into a situation, is far more reckless and dastardly than the superfluous ones you are complaining about in your thread.

Certainly a few racial conflicts will happen by accident, but its those that incite them that are the main problem, not the ones complaining about them. I suggest it you who takes off the racial glasses. See where there is obvious racism, accept it, challenge those few to be ignored, and move on to discuss the issues, instead of arguing some silly semantics that create the possibility that person isnt purposefully being racist, when its quite clear that they are.

I do hope you see the irony of your posts in any case....youre ignoring the issues and arguing about people crying racist, while the other side is crying racists....I suppose we can only hope there are some somewhere ignoring both sides, and actually discussing the actual problems.

Side 1. youre racist and not discussing the issues
Side 2. youre crying racist and not discussing the issues
Side 1. youre racist and not discussing the issues
Side 2. youre crying racist and not discussing the issues
Side 1. youre racist and not discussing the issues
Side 2. youre crying racist and not discussing the issues
Side 1. youre racist and not discussing the issues
Side 2. youre crying racist and not discussing the issues
Side 1. youre racist and not discussing the issues
Side 2. youre crying racist and not discussing the issues
Side 1. youre racist and not discussing the issues
Side 2. youre crying racist and not discussing the issues

Perhaps both sides are putting too much time into the argument, but at least side 1 is fighting racism along the way, and certainly at times, as with that poster, are 100% justified to do so. Either way, neither side is discussing the issue, and since you seem to be saying "youre crying racist and not discussing the issues" youre doing the very thing you are complaining about essentially. I certainly am not discussing the issue of economics either, but thats because the poster was racist, and needs to be pointed out for that, despite whatever issue is at hand, or my thoughts on it.

[Metsfanmax]

It's not that i don't agree with what you're discussing - it's just that it's devolved into totally meaningless posts. It would be more useful if you guys put your intelligence behind something that actually matters.

It looks like you're wasting a lot of time on posts when you're trying to not waste time answering them...

Thank you Mets, that was a very intelligent and helpful contribution to this thread. You have really brought a lot of new ideas to the table and advanced the dialogue that was occurring before your arrival.

It's a hell of a lot more intelligent than any of the babble that's come out of the people in this thread in the last five pages or so.

[Woodruff]

[
Well, there I must disagree with you. I believe arguing against racists will indeed get us further. Just as arguing about ending slavery eventually helped end slavery, I believe arguing against racists and racism will help end racism. What will not get us further is sitting back and allowing ignorance to thrive, and not posting against such obvious, and overt racism will only help to continue it. No doubt it will be a long fight, and a bitter one, and will mean suffering opinions that are so skewed and devoid of character, logic and intelligence at times as to be physically painful to have to read, but in the end, right will always triumph over wrong. Sometimes it just takes longer than it should.

As far as the picture and the phrase, yes, that of course is obviously racist, and even purposefully so. That part I do agree with you on.

The thing is I don't believe Woodward is intentionally racist and to paint him as such serves no purpose, becuase it is a false accusation and he will therefore defend it as such. To say that he might need to look into this issue a bit more, might be ignorant of some aspects, etc .. that is far more beneficial than trying to paint him in a racist corner.

Honestly, I know exactly what you meant. I simply used your post for a little grandstanding, and its so obvious I dont even mind pointing it out for the less acute who may have not seen it as what it was.

As far as me suggesting or painting woodward as a racist, I do not believe I did. I believe the person who made the poster was necessarily racist......or...beyond naive and ignorant beyond belief....and only that those who are defending the poster, are either wrong, or racists...in fact...I believe I used very nearly those exact words. Personally I would venture to guess that woodward may even be less racist than myself. I try very hard not to be or say racist, but I think anyone would be lying to say they do not have any racist tendencies at all, and while I fully rally against those tendencies, I am not about to say I am completely free from them....

Good God, it's "Woodruff", people! And for the record, AAFitz, I didn't at any point feel you were calling me a racist.

[Woodruff]

Even so, I will say what I did to Woodruff, please educate yourself. It seems you made a brief search and found we were not utterly ridiculous, but I do suggest you go a bit further. The monkey=black is hardly an ancient or passing reference. It is a very, very long-standing association that few people miss.

As I already told you, I recognize that it is. That does not make every single usage of it in regards to a black man a racist remark! That doesn't even make sense. As Night Strike has stated quite clearly, the sign was ALL ABOUT "OBAMANOMICS", otherwise known as his economic policies. EVERYTHING ON THAT SIGN is a reference to those economic policies except for the fact that the picture is a monkey. That picture DIRECTLY RELATES to the words on that sign however, which related to the economic policies. Again, if the picture had some resemblance to Obama, then I would agree with you. It does not, however...and in fact it has resemblance to economic policy with the dollar signs embedded in it.

You tell us to educate ourselves (which presumes we're not well aware of the issue, which I know I very much am), and yet you guys are seeing racism where it does not exist simply because you EXPECT to see it there. If a sign would make perfect sense in relating to a different President (let's say Bush II), then I can't see how you can say it is racist. And I would absolutely hold that sign would make perfect sense in being directed at Bush II with only the obvious change of "OBAMANOMICS" to "BUSHANOMICS". In that case, you'd simply presume the monkey was a decoration related to the words "Monkey see, monkey spend".

[PLAYER57832]

Even so, I will say what I did to Woodruff, please educate yourself. It seems you made a brief search and found we were not utterly ridiculous, but I do suggest you go a bit further. The monkey=black is hardly an ancient or passing reference. It is a very, very long-standing association that few people miss.

As I already told you, I recognize that it is. That does not make every single usage of it in regards to a black man a racist remark! That doesn't even make sense. As Night Strike has stated quite clearly, the sign was ALL ABOUT "OBAMANOMICS", otherwise known as his economic policies. EVERYTHING ON THAT SIGN is a reference to those economic policies except for the fact that the picture is a monkey. That picture DIRECTLY RELATES to the words on that sign however, which related to the economic policies. Again, if the picture had some resemblance to Obama, then I would agree with you. It does not, however...and in fact it has resemblance to economic policy with the dollar signs embedded in it.

Then we are talking about different signs. The one with the monkey reference that I saw was just words, no picture.
The other was the witchdoctor=Obama.

You tell us to educate ourselves (which presumes we're not well aware of the issue, which I know I very much am), and yet you guys are seeing racism where it does not exist simply because you EXPECT to see it there. If a sign would make perfect sense in relating to a different President (let's say Bush II), then I can't see how you can say it is racist. And I would absolutely hold that sign would make perfect sense in being directed at Bush II with only the obvious change of "OBAMANOMICS" to "BUSHANOMICS". In that case, you'd simply presume the monkey was a decoration related to the words "Monkey see, monkey spend".

I don't believe those signs would make sense or would be used against Bush. That is the point.

When I said educate, it was in reference to your comments that there is nothing racist about putting Obama as a witchdoctor, and, yes, that there is nothing overtly racist about using the term "monkey" in this reference.

[AAFitz]

[
Well, there I must disagree with you. I believe arguing against racists will indeed get us further. Just as arguing about ending slavery eventually helped end slavery, I believe arguing against racists and racism will help end racism. What will not get us further is sitting back and allowing ignorance to thrive, and not posting against such obvious, and overt racism will only help to continue it. No doubt it will be a long fight, and a bitter one, and will mean suffering opinions that are so skewed and devoid of character, logic and intelligence at times as to be physically painful to have to read, but in the end, right will always triumph over wrong. Sometimes it just takes longer than it should.

As far as the picture and the phrase, yes, that of course is obviously racist, and even purposefully so. That part I do agree with you on.

The thing is I don't believe Woodward is intentionally racist and to paint him as such serves no purpose, becuase it is a false accusation and he will therefore defend it as such. To say that he might need to look into this issue a bit more, might be ignorant of some aspects, etc .. that is far more beneficial than trying to paint him in a racist corner.

Honestly, I know exactly what you meant. I simply used your post for a little grandstanding, and its so obvious I dont even mind pointing it out for the less acute who may have not seen it as what it was.

As far as me suggesting or painting woodruff as a racist, I do not believe I did. I believe the person who made the poster was necessarily racist......or...beyond naive and ignorant beyond belief....and only that those who are defending the poster, are either wrong, or racists...in fact...I believe I used very nearly those exact words. Personally I would venture to guess that woodruff may even be less racist than myself. I try very hard not to be or say racist, but I think anyone would be lying to say they do not have any racist tendencies at all, and while I fully rally against those tendencies, I am not about to say I am completely free from them....

Good God, it's "Woodruff", people! And for the record, AAFitz, I didn't at any point feel you were calling me a racist.

Im glad. Its a charged subject, and I dont use the word racist lightly, simply because I do feel it is such a vile thing. And I apologize for the name spelling...it also was no attempt at changing it on purpose for any reason... its a lazy typo as a result of typing and responding to quite a few posts in a short period. My opinions are pretty strong on the subject, and thats pretty clear, which makes for a spirited discussion, and Im not afraid to post my opinion on what someone writes, or what I assume that means about them, so there is no doubt, I should spend more time and proofread some posts. Its just not always possible. I fixed it though, and am really sorry if that looked like I was purposely changing your name on purpose. Im not even saying Im above that, but I certainly wasn't doing it here. My opinion is only about this one poster and about the opinions given here about it.

[Night Strike]

Then we are talking about different signs. The one with the monkey reference that I saw was just words, no picture.
The other was the witchdoctor=Obama.

The monkey one posted in this thread had a small picture in the top left corner, to the left of the "Obamanomics" lines.

I don't believe those signs would make sense or would be used against Bush. That is the point.

I searched "Bush witch doctor image" and found this:

[AAFitz]

Then we are talking about different signs. The one with the monkey reference that I saw was just words, no picture.
The other was the witchdoctor=Obama.

The monkey one posted in this thread had a small picture in the top left corner, to the left of the "Obamanomics" lines.

I don't believe those signs would make sense or would be used against Bush. That is the point.

I searched "Bush witch doctor image" and found this:

Are you saying that sign makes sense? I expect she will thank you for proving her point for her, which you unwittingly did. I suppose you could add the line, "Bush gets dressed to convince Katrina victims he actually likes black people" which would even make it racist to boot.

You could add the line, "bush gets dressed for halloween", and make it innocuous instead.

Or the line, looks "like He fell of the wagon, the former weak-willed alcoholic that he is.", which is certainly offensive beyond belief, just not racist.

Same picture, three completely different meanings altogether, all with the addition, in this case, of some not so subtle wording.

Whats important is the message that the poster is trying to make, and simplifying it and ignoring the overall intent is just silly, since such things are purposefully done on a very subtle basis. Your comparisons are mostly comparing apples to oranges, when to truly discuss it one must be on the level of the dna of the apple or given orange to truly understand it.

You also seem to be trying to say that because people improperly made fun of bush with posters, that people should be allowed to make racist ones of Obama. No doubt, they should be able to make satirical ones of Obama. Its even their right to make racist ones, but that doesn't make any of them right, and it still makes defending the racist ones, reprehensible, and akin to promoting racism.

Most importantly, if you really care about the issues, and whats important, I wouldnt think youd try to defend any of these types of character defaming pictures, which are all the tools of the weak, to attack character instead of discussing the issues at hand. And again, Ill point out the irony that that is exactly what you were trying to illustrate in the first place.

Instead of defending the racist assaults on Obama, if you really care about the issues and policies, show some backbone and stand up against all of them against everyone, and leave the name calling and caracture drawings to the ones incapable of nothing else...if, as you say, you actually care about the important issues.

[Woodruff]

Even so, I will say what I did to Woodruff, please educate yourself. It seems you made a brief search and found we were not utterly ridiculous, but I do suggest you go a bit further. The monkey=black is hardly an ancient or passing reference. It is a very, very long-standing association that few people miss.

As I already told you, I recognize that it is. That does not make every single usage of it in regards to a black man a racist remark! That doesn't even make sense. As Night Strike has stated quite clearly, the sign was ALL ABOUT "OBAMANOMICS", otherwise known as his economic policies. EVERYTHING ON THAT SIGN is a reference to those economic policies except for the fact that the picture is a monkey. That picture DIRECTLY RELATES to the words on that sign however, which related to the economic policies. Again, if the picture had some resemblance to Obama, then I would agree with you. It does not, however...and in fact it has resemblance to economic policy with the dollar signs embedded in it.

Then we are talking about different signs. The one with the monkey reference that I saw was just words, no picture.

Uh...I don't even know what to say.

You tell us to educate ourselves (which presumes we're not well aware of the issue, which I know I very much am), and yet you guys are seeing racism where it does not exist simply because you EXPECT to see it there. If a sign would make perfect sense in relating to a different President (let's say Bush II), then I can't see how you can say it is racist. And I would absolutely hold that sign would make perfect sense in being directed at Bush II with only the obvious change of "OBAMANOMICS" to "BUSHANOMICS". In that case, you'd simply presume the monkey was a decoration related to the words "Monkey see, monkey spend".

I don't believe those signs would make sense or would be used against Bush. That is the point.

When I said educate, it was in reference to your comments that there is nothing racist about putting Obama as a witchdoctor, and, yes, that there is nothing overtly racist about using the term "monkey" in this reference.[/quote]

There isn't. It has nothing to do with education or ignorance...it has to do with the fact that you're seeing what you expect to see (even when you apparently haven't seen it, based on your reference above).

[Woodruff]

Good God, it's "Woodruff", people!

And I apologize for the name spelling...it also was no attempt at changing it on purpose for any reason...

That part was just a joke on my part, actually. So no sweat at all.

[Woodruff]

Instead of defending the racist assaults on Obama, if you really care about the issues and policies, show some backbone and stand up against all of them against everyone, and leave the name calling and caracture drawings to the ones incapable of nothing else...if, as you say, you actually care about the important issues.

I do really care about the issue of racism - I take it VERY personally. Which is precisely why I speak out against outrageous claims of racism such as these that ONLY serve to distract people from the very real racism.

[AAFitz]

Instead of defending the racist assaults on Obama, if you really care about the issues and policies, show some backbone and stand up against all of them against everyone, and leave the name calling and caracture drawings to the ones incapable of nothing else...if, as you say, you actually care about the important issues.

I do really care about the issue of racism - I take it VERY personally. Which is precisely why I speak out against outrageous claims of racism such as these that ONLY serve to distract people from the very real racism.

Lol, once again, to call these outrageous claims of racism, is just absolutely ridiculous. The intent is clear, and at best, its thinly veiled racism, with plausible deniability. In your speaking out against this, without more careful consideration, you are in fact promoting racism, however unwittingly.

[AAFitz]

Good God, it's "Woodruff", people!

And I apologize for the name spelling...it also was no attempt at changing it on purpose for any reason...

That part was just a joke on my part, actually. So no sweat at all.

I know you didnt care about it, but it really did look like I was messing with your name, though woodward isnt much of an insult, unless of course you're Nixon.

[PLAYER57832]

Then we are talking about different signs. The one with the monkey reference that I saw was just words, no picture.
The other was the witchdoctor=Obama.

The monkey one posted in this thread had a small picture in the top left corner, to the left of the "Obamanomics" lines.

I don't believe those signs would make sense or would be used against Bush. That is the point.

I searched "Bush witch doctor image" and found this:

I would be interested in see the context of the Bush picture.

At any rate, I think the bottom line is that the fact we are even debating this issue shows we have come a long way in our society.

Sometimes, its good to just step back and realize how far we have come.

I hate to get all sappy in the midst of a good argument, but remember King's words ..

"little black boys and little white boys, little black girls and white girls, walk hand in hand". That say is here, in my community and, I suspect yours, too.

The problem with these racist accusations is that they say little. People who are racist will likely continue to be racist. Some people just are. However, if we don't allow them to set the actions of our society, then we have won.

I guess in a small way, letting words become "evil" is allowing them to twist the agenda, mush like George Carlin remarked about the "power" of those "7 words"... and argued, in part, that using them takes their power away. That said, if we ignore symbols and real innuations, then we allow things to be passed over without remark. It is a tricky balancing act.

[Debater]

Alright, let's take another look at the poster.

Click image to enlarge.

"Obamanomics" CLEARLY indicates that the individual is referring to the economic policies of Obama, his administration, and his supporters in Congress. When it comes to economic policies of the president, who gives a flying f*** about what race he/she is????? His economic policies of spending were clearly mimicking the spending policies of Bush, which is why the sign says what it does. Race is irrelevant in economics (unless you're talking about reparations) as economic policies affect people, not races.

Some people even believe that these guys aren't racists, they're just practicing their religion.

Click image to enlarge.

[Night Strike]

Some people even believe that these guys aren't racists, they're just practicing their religion.

Click image to enlarge.

The KKK is irrelevant to anything regarding the Tea Party.

[PLAYER57832]

Alright, let's take another look at the poster.

Click image to enlarge.

"Obamanomics" CLEARLY indicates that the individual is referring to the economic policies of Obama, his administration, and his supporters in Congress. When it comes to economic policies of the president, who gives a flying f*** about what race he/she is????? His economic policies of spending were clearly mimicking the spending policies of Bush, which is why the sign says what it does. Race is irrelevant in economics (unless you're talking about reparations) as economic policies affect people, not races.

Well, I am definitely not comfortable with that image, becuase I think it is all to easy to see it as racist. (and I am not sure I buy that its just like Bush argument). However, I can see where there is some question on that point.

All in all, I would say it could have been done better.

[Night Strike]

Well, I am definitely not comfortable with that image, becuase I think it is all to easy to see it as racist. (and I am not sure I buy that its just like Bush argument). However, I can see where there is some question on that point.

All in all, I would say it could have been done better.

It's only easy to see it as racist because you expect there to be racist posters at Tea Party events. Someone who has never heard the phrase "monkey see, monkey do" may be more inclined to see racism, but once they're enlightened as to what that phrase means, only the people who want to see racism actually see it.

[pimpdave]

LOL @ Night Strike

[Phatscotty]

Alright, let's take another look at the poster.

Click image to enlarge.

"Obamanomics" CLEARLY indicates that the individual is referring to the economic policies of Obama, his administration, and his supporters in Congress. When it comes to economic policies of the president, who gives a flying f*** about what race he/she is????? His economic policies of spending were clearly mimicking the spending policies of Bush, which is why the sign says what it does. Race is irrelevant in economics (unless you're talking about reparations) as economic policies affect people, not races.

Some people even believe that these guys aren't racists, they're just practicing their religion.

Click image to enlarge.

nothing racist about this, or yours. the monkey card goes way back...

[pimpdave]

It's only easy to see it as racist because you expect there to be racist posters at Tea Party events. Someone who has never heard the phrase "monkey see, monkey do" may be more inclined to see racism, but once they're enlightened as to what that phrase means, only the people who want to see racism actually see it.

How does "monkey see, monkey do", which refers to one animal imitating another, translate to "monkey see, monkey spend"? According to you, the reference is implying that Obama is imitating something, if it refers to that colloquialism. What is he imitating?

Cause it doesn't. The sign is directly suggesting that Obama is a monkey.

[Night Strike]

It's only easy to see it as racist because you expect there to be racist posters at Tea Party events. Someone who has never heard the phrase "monkey see, monkey do" may be more inclined to see racism, but once they're enlightened as to what that phrase means, only the people who want to see racism actually see it.

How does "monkey see, monkey do", which refers to one animal imitating another, translate to "monkey see, monkey spend"? According to you, the reference is implying that Obama is imitating something, if it refers to that colloquialism. What is he imitating?

You forgot the title of the poster, which said "Obamanomics". He's mimicking the massive spending he saw the others doing in Washington (the Democratic Congress and President Bush).

[King Doctor]

only the people who want to see racism actually see it.

... and in the real world; only the people who don't want to see racism in that poster (also, Woodruff) manage to miss it.

[Woodruff]

only the people who want to see racism actually see it.

... and in the real world; only the people who don't want to see racism in that poster (also, Woodruff) manage to miss it.

You again show your ignorance in believing that someone who has been called a race-baiter in these fora on more than one occasion would be someone who "don't want to see racism".

[King Doctor]

You again show your ignorance in believing that someone who has been called a race-baiter in these fora on more than one occasion would be someone who "don't want to see racism".

Are you saying that you are a race baiter?

Because if you were, then your statement would make sense. i.e. you would be a person who would be looking for racism. Which would make me ignorant for not knowing such and consequently describing you as somebody who was not looking for racism.

If on the other hand you are saying that you are not a race baiter, then the fact that you have been incorrectly labelled as such would not, in and of itself, make you somebody who wanted (or, indeed, did not want) to see racism; making my original statement entirely accurate.