George Takei: Clarence Thomas is a "Clown in Blackface"

His comments seem racist and are probably socially unacceptable.

But I see many people agreeing.

Glad the 1st Amendment isn't under fire.



Note-taking is important.

This Takei clown should be being drawn and quartered across all forms of media for what he said, but the controllers of said media won't attack a good little sheeple individual who is following the agenda as intended.

I wonder how dignified Uncle Clarence Thomas would feel if the Supreme Court hadn't ruled the way it did in 1968 in Loving Vs Virginia, that allowed for mixed race marriages? I wonder how Clarence and his wife, Virginia (VIRGINIA), a white woman, would have held onto their dignity if they were denied a marriage license?

originally posted by: windword
I wonder how dignified Uncle Clarence Thomas would feel if the Supreme Court hadn't ruled the way it did in 1968 in Loving Vs Virginia, that allowed for mixed race marriages? I wonder how Clarence and his wife, Virginia (VIRGINIA), a white woman, would have held onto their dignity if they were denied a marriage license?

What if I said: I wonder how dignified Uncle Tom Barack Obama would feel if.....
that is racist, that is bigoted, that is mean and hateful.
Your statement is the exact same statement (insert another name)
Just because the racist bigotry is directed at someone you disagree with, a conservative, it doesn't make your remark any less racist or bigoted or hate filled.

originally posted by: xuenchen
His comments seem racist and are probably socially unacceptable.

But I see many people agreeing.

Glad the 1st Amendment isn't under fire.

Note-taking is important.

So very sad, and telling

that a lot of people agree with blatant and ugly racism
if it is directed at a conservative

The statements he followed his ugly racist comment with does not negate
or make forgivable
the ugly, racist words
If you think the rest of what he said negated the racism, you are a hypocrite.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Barack Obama never claimed that slavery never took away anyone's dignity.

Thomas is a self-hating, corrupt and compliant mouthpiece for his handlers, appointed purely to shield the Right from the appearance of racism while he toes the party line.

Insisting that dignity can't be taken by enslavement, no matter how many stripes are laid on one's back, or no matter how many times one's family is put on the auction block, is beyond unintelligent and goes past any pale of decency!

It's another form of shaming victims for their state of existence.

Seems to me this is being discussed by partisan lines. Conservative hate George, probably because he's a liberal. George is right though. This is a representative of the highest court in the land. If he thinks slaves had dignity he really should rewatch Roots. George was pointing out the parallel with his experiences during WW2 and the gov't stripping Japanese Americans of their dignity.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: grandmakdw

Barack Obama never claimed that slavery never took away anyone's dignity.

Thomas is a self-hating, corrupt and compliant mouthpiece for his handlers, appointed purely to shield the Right from the appearance of racism while he toes the party line.

Insisting that dignity can't be taken by enslavement, no matter how many stripes are laid on one's back, or no matter how many times one's family is put on the auction block, is beyond unintelligent and goes past any pale of decency!

It's another form of shaming victims for their state of existence.

So then you are saying it is acceptable to call a black man, a leader in our government, a Supreme Court Judge
"A clown in white face?"

Just because you disagree with his policies?

I disagree a great deal with Obama's policies and have as much respect for him as you do for Clarence Thomas,
so does it then make it ok for me to call Obama "A clown in white face"?
I think not, but if you think it is ok to call any black leader in our country a clown in white face because you don't like their policies or viewpoints. Well, search within yourself to reconcile, or say it is ok to call any black person a clown in white face if we don't like their views or statements.

Which is it? Ok only for liberals, which is hypocritical,
or ok for everyone to say racist things about black people,
which is not hypocritical but truly racist, judgmental, and quite ugly?

a reply to: grandmakdw

George is from my parents generation, thus the black-face comment. If he had been younger he would have called him an oreo. Black on the outside, white on the inside.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Good thing you have your fake outrage news, takei is an idiot for saying what he said, but you cant keep a good oh pity us story, oh the humanity, what about the children lol.

a reply to: grandmakdw

So then you are saying it is acceptable to call a black man, a leader in our government, a Supreme Court Judge
"A clown in white face?"

Sure! But the insult would be the "clown" part. "Whiteface" isn't an insult.

Just because you disagree with his policies?

No, not because of his policies, but because of his reasoning.

I disagree a great deal with Obama's policies and have as much respect for him as you do for Clarence Thomas,
so does it then make it ok for me to call Obama "A clown in white face"?
I think not, but if you think it is ok to call any black leader in our country a clown in white face because you don't like their policies or viewpoints. Well, search within yourself to reconcile, or say it is ok to call any black person a clown in white face if we don't like their views or statements.

It's not like it's never been done before!



I think it's okay for you to call anyone anything, because of free speech and all. However, if you were representing the highest court of our nation, I'd expect that there would be some backlash for saying something controversial.

No doubt what George Takei said was controversial and maybe it even could be considered racist by some. But his point was that Clarence Thomas' own self hatred betrays black confidence, therefore, the "blackface" accusation. It an accusation of hypocrisy.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: grandmakdw

So then you are saying it is acceptable to call a black man, a leader in our government, a Supreme Court Judge
"A clown in white face?"

Sure! But the insult would be the "clown" part. "Whiteface" isn't an insult.

Just because you disagree with his policies?

No, not because of his policies, but because of his reasoning.

I disagree a great deal with Obama's policies and have as much respect for him as you do for Clarence Thomas,
so does it then make it ok for me to call Obama "A clown in white face"?
I think not, but if you think it is ok to call any black leader in our country a clown in white face because you don't like their policies or viewpoints. Well, search within yourself to reconcile, or say it is ok to call any black person a clown in white face if we don't like their views or statements.

It's not like it's never been done before!

I think it's okay for you to call anyone anything, because of free speech and all. However, if you were representing the highest court of our nation, I'd expect that there would be some backlash for saying something controversial.

No doubt what George Takei said was controversial and maybe even raciest. But his point was that Clarence Thomas' own self hatred betrays black confidence, therefore, the "blackface" accusation. It an accusation of hypocrisy.

Wow, that is one of the most racist
most intolerant
most bigoted
set of statements
I have read on ATS in a long time.

a reply to: grandmakdw

People have the right to be bigoted and racist. People have the right to criticize, boycott and/or shun those that they disagree with.

I disagree with your assessment of me and my posts, but I'll defend your right to say so. I'll also defend others' right to agree with you.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Oh, so you're a racist too. Noted.

Let's be honest. The ONLY reason you attempt to justify Takei is because you agree with him and don't agree with Thomas. There is no other reason.

/thread

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Good thing you have your fake outrage news, takei is an idiot for saying what he said, but you cant keep a good oh pity us story, oh the humanity, what about the children lol.

You must be talking about CNN.

That's what I watch and it's all outrage, all we're offended by something, all the time.

a reply to: grandmakdw

I really don't think you have a clue what racism is with the way you're acting in this thread.

You do realise the the term blackface is not a racist term but a racist act where a white person dresses up and blackens their face? If he had said it in full blackface makeup that would be racist.So calling someone "a clown in blackface" is not racist.
It is either implying that he is being willfully ignorant or calling him a bigot, much like the people who dressed up as clowns with blackface were back when that type of entertainment was around.
It's all in the context.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: grandmakdw

George is from my parents generation, thus the black-face comment. If he had been younger he would have called him an oreo. Black on the outside, white on the inside.

Still an unacceptable racist comment, regardless of generation.

Doesn't make the comment any less racist.

What if William Shatner disagreed with Obama on a policy, he is from Takai's generation
and he said Obama was a "clown in white face" because he disagreed with something Obama said and
disagreed with his political stand in general?
Shatner would have been run out of Hollywood, he would have been forced to give up his half of Priceline and would be removed from the commercials, he would never work again, and he would get hate email and death threats for the racist remarks.

There is no difference in the scenario I posit with Shatner, than what Takai said.
Takai's remark is inexcusable, to say it is ok because Takai is liberal and said it to a conservative one disagrees with, does in no make way it excusable or acceptable. It is still highly racist and intolerant and quite hateful.

To excuse Takai simply because you agree with the rest of what he said, is hypocritical if you supported the firing of the football team owner who made a racist remark in private that was recorded against his knowledge by a jilted lover.
If one has called for the firing or excoriation of any conservative for saying a racist remark, then to be consistent, and not to be a hypocrite, one must also excoriate Takai for his remark.

Unless liberals are excused from all behavior that conservatives are excoriated for simply because they are liberals and are therefore deemed unable because they are liberals to be racist or intolerant. If one believes that, one is hypocritical.

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: grandmakdw

George is from my parents generation, thus the black-face comment. If he had been younger he would have called him an oreo. Black on the outside, white on the inside.

Still an unacceptable racist comment, regardless of generation.

Doesn't make the comment any less racist.

He's just calling as he sees it and, no, I don't see it as racist. He slammed Sir Judge for demeaning the experience of Blacks. That's stand up.

What if...

I don't deal in "what if's". "What if's" are for people without a leg to stand on.

Unless liberals are excused from all behavior that conservatives are excoriated for simply because they are conservatives.

Tired chestnut. These "conservatives" have got to crawl down off their crosses. Martyrdom went out style a long time ago.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: grandmakdw

George is from my parents generation, thus the black-face comment. If he had been younger he would have called him an oreo. Black on the outside, white on the inside.

Still an unacceptable racist comment, regardless of generation.

Doesn't make the comment any less racist.

He's just calling as he sees it and, no, I don't see it as racist. He slammed Sir Judge for demeaning the experience of Blacks. That's stand up.

What if...

I don't deal in "what if's". "What if's" are for people without a leg to stand on.

Unless liberals are excused from all behavior that conservatives are excoriated for simply because they are conservatives.

Tired chestnut. These "conservatives" have got to crawl down off their crosses. Martyrdom went out style a long time ago.

You never responded to the basic question.

What if Shatner had used the exact same phrase about Obama and then proceeded to give all the reasons he said it.
If Shatner called Obama a "clown in whiteface" and then ranted on about how he found Obama's policies and ideas awful.
Would that be racist?

Is the picture posted earlier of Clinton in blackface racist?
I doubt you will say yes because you agree with the politics of the poster.

How about if I posted a picture of Hillary in blackface?
Would that be racist if I did it because you don't like my politics?

Where is the consistancy?

I am shocked at all the people who excuse Takai for his statement simply because they agree with his politics and fail to see the ugly racism in the words simply because they dislike Clarence Thomas.

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: grandmakdw

George is from my parents generation, thus the black-face comment. If he had been younger he would have called him an oreo. Black on the outside, white on the inside.

Still an unacceptable racist comment, regardless of generation.

Doesn't make the comment any less racist.

He's just calling as he sees it and, no, I don't see it as racist. He slammed Sir Judge for demeaning the experience of Blacks. That's stand up.

What if...

I don't deal in "what if's". "What if's" are for people without a leg to stand on.

Unless liberals are excused from all behavior that conservatives are excoriated for simply because they are conservatives.

Tired chestnut. These "conservatives" have got to crawl down off their crosses. Martyrdom went out style a long time ago.

You never responded to the basic question.

Yes I did. You just ignored it again:

I don't deal in "what if's". "What if's" are for people without a leg to stand on.