Former Californian Governor Calls Blacks "Monkeys"; President Nixon calls them "bunch of dogs"

originally posted by: lakenheath24
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Didnt hurt India. Same scenario. Whats the diff though?

II don't know *why*, but the British widely educated those who rose to become the ruling class in India. Gandhi, for example, was college educated in a London law school. Britain did not do that where sub-Saharan African subjects were concerned. Truth be told, it probably had a lot to do with the fact that India and North African countries were literate before England entered the picture, with India having a rich history of education via Hindu and Buddhist schools and north Africa being basically the birthplace of writing and civilization. Sub-Saharan Africa had not progressed beyond tribalism and primitive societies prior to Britain and France colonizing it, with a few exceptions being Zanzibar, Mombasa, Axum, and Timbuktu.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
If historians someday find out that Archimedes said something racist, does that mean we don't have to do math any more?

BEHOLD!
www.nationalreview.com...

A math-education professor at the University of Illinois wrote about some of the more racist aspects of math in a new anthology for teachers, arguing that “mathematics itself operates as Whiteness.”

If Archimedes had a Youtube account, they'd have clearly banned it by now for racism.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

It's sad. I was being satirical.


SMDH

I thought the Chinese were the monkey people? Because they are most often short.

Is height discrimination considered racism?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: burdman30ott6

It's sad. I was being satirical.


SMDH

Satirical Justice Warriors

originally posted by: DBCowboy
If historians someday find out that Archimedes said something racist, does that mean we don't have to do math any more?

Everything except algebra.

Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi would be upset at his al jabr being ignored.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: burdman30ott6

It's sad. I was being satirical.


SMDH

Satirical Justice Warriors

Ima stealing that.

Just so you know. . . .

a reply to: DBCowboy

mi zinger es su zinger.

originally posted by: lakenheath24
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Didnt hurt India. Same scenario. Whats the diff though?

Actually, it did hurt India. Gandhi's form of self-sufficient socialism set India back decades and is still arguably holding it back today.

We are talking about the country where people still defecate in the open air because if they dig a pit latrine, someone would have to become unclean in order to empty it, right?

originally posted by: rickymouse
I thought the Chinese were the monkey people? Because they are most often short.

Is height discrimination considered racism?

If it's not, then we'll just use ableism which works just as well.

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: AnakinWayneII

You should look up what president Johnsom thought about blacks...

He was a pretty horrible person.

Or Lincoln... he wanted to just ship all blacks back to Africa because he thought there was no way whites and blacks could co-exist.

One would like to think that in the 21st century we had gotten past a lot of that...

I think we have in the 21st century for the vast majority, but racism is not just a white person disease and I feel it is even more prevailing in non-whites these days. The other thing is when I see any posts like the OP it seems we want to lay today's social norms on yesterday's social norms and I find that to be not very productive.

originally posted by: rickymouse
I thought the Chinese were the monkey people? Because they are most often short.

Is height discrimination considered racism?

I think height discrimination is just as bad racism.

originally posted by: AnakinWayneII

originally posted by: rickymouse
I thought the Chinese were the monkey people? Because they are most often short.

Is height discrimination considered racism?

I think height discrimination is just as bad racism.

I agree, short people are far too often overlooked by society. We need to move them up society's ladder more and get face to face with the shortcomings that have allowed that form of discrimination to go under the radar for so long.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Was his underlying point wrong and was the way he said it even considered "racist" in the 70s?

Underlying point aside, referring to blacks as "monkeys" is pretty racist, even in the 70s.

a reply to: Liquesence


I'll go ahead and toss out there the simple fact that Reagan is one of a very discrete percentage of Americans who has actually worked with a monkey... somehow I don't think the term carried the same connotations from him as many today view it as.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

He referred to black Africans as monkeys. Pretty sure it carried the same or similar connotation, because blacks and slaves have been compared to—as seen as, by some—sub-human, and akin to animals, for a very long time.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
If historians someday find out that Archimedes said something racist, does that mean we don't have to do math any more?

They'll have to redefine Euclidean Geometry too !! 🎯

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Was his underlying point wrong and was the way he said it even considered "racist" in the 70s?

Underlying point aside, referring to blacks as "monkeys" is pretty racist, even in the 70s.

In fairness, we're talking about 1971, so I should have said beginning of the 70s. When you consider that the infamous "Banned Dozen" cartoons from Warner Brothers and Disney weren't withheld from syndication until 1969, and watch one of them today, it's pretty damn obvious that we live in an entirely different world. By today's considerations, what Reagan said would have gotten him in a lot of hot water. I'll accept that, despite personally not finding it racist. In 1971 though, I don't think so... You're talking a bout a time when N-bombs were dropped across the spectrum of speakers with little to no thought towards possible future repercussions. In other words, had he intended to be racist about it, he could have easily picked something a lot more offensive by today's standards and openly said such.

ETA: This is intended for your following post, not the one I quoted. Sorry.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: AnakinWayneII

You should look up what president Johnsom thought about blacks...

He was a pretty horrible person.

Or Lincoln... he wanted to just ship all blacks back to Africa because he thought there was no way whites and blacks could co-exist.

One would like to think that in the 21st century we had gotten past a lot of that...

I think we have in the 21st century for the vast majority, but racism is not just a white person disease and I feel it is even more prevailing in non-whites these days. The other thing is when I see any posts like the OP it seems we want to lay today's social norms on yesterday's social norms and I find that to be not very productive.

Very true.

My grandmother uses language that would get her banned from social media, yet has no ill-will towards any race.

It's just a different time now in the PC world that we live in.

And if you want to see racism in action, sit around a campfire with a bunch of full-blood Cherokee and listen in.

I don't really know a Hispanic (we have more than a few in the family) that doesn't dislike blacks.

The list could go on.... it really isn't "whitey" that has the market cornered on racism at all.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Was his underlying point wrong and was the way he said it even considered "racist" in the 70s?

Underlying point aside, referring to blacks as "monkeys" is pretty racist, even in the 70s.

In fairness, we're talking about 1971, so I should have said beginning of the 70s. When you consider that the infamous "Banned Dozen" cartoons from Warner Brothers and Disney weren't withheld from syndication until 1969, and watch one of them today, it's pretty damn obvious that we live in an entirely different world. By today's considerations, what Reagan said would have gotten him in a lot of hot water. I'll accept that, despite personally not finding it racist. In 1971 though, I don't think so... You're talking a bout a time when N-bombs were dropped across the spectrum of speakers with little to no thought towards possible future repercussions. In other words, had he intended to be racist about it, he could have easily picked something a lot more offensive by today's standards and openly said such.

ETA: This is intended for your following post, not the one I quoted. Sorry.

Whether WB had previous cartoons or not is not the point (there was a lot of racist # back then in popular culture). Did they consider it racist then? Whites probably didn't. But was it? Essentially, yes. I know that is your point, but if you called a black person a monkey—even then—that is racist, just like calling a slave a monkey or a dog was (didn't MLK address as such?). I'm willing to bet that if anyone, in 1970, addressed black people as monkeys, they would find it offensive. But I could be wrong.

As far as n*gger is concerned, that is different. That was common vernacular, even among blacks for themselves, for decades and at least a century before. So, yes, things change.

That is the point: calling black people monkeys is racist, it doesn't really matter how it is viewed at the time. I think a lot of black folk would agree, even those alive at the time.