Some Republican ideas seem racist.

College Confidential Community
1

<p>well, correct me if i’m wrong here, but some republican planks just have a subtle, underlying racist tone, it seems. i’m not trying to insult anybody, and i’m sure not all republicans agree with these ideas, im simply pointing out an observation. here are the examples i can think of off the top of my head:</p>

<li><p>i was listening to conservative talk radio, and a respected republican figure (dennis prager, i believe) INSISTED that all hispanic immigrants must speak english 24/7. his argument was something along the lines of, “they are in America now, they need to learn american ways and speak in the american tongue. they need to act american”. to me, this seems overly harsh. not only is it hard to learn english, but it’s unfair to expect these people to “americanize” and completely forget/lose their native culture! besides, what exactly are “american ways”? such a statement is tantamount to the belief that no american is unique–that we all act in the same way.</p></li>
<li><p>the broad mcarthurism that barack obama is inexperienced. excuse me, the man graduated magna cum laude from harvard law. he is 45 years old, which is considered middle-aged. he has been in the illinois state senate or the US senate since 1996, so he has indeed spent a lot of time in washington. the “inexperienced” misconception continues to thrive in part because Obama appears younger than he really is. im not sure about this, but my theory is that republicans (as well as others) claim that obama is inexperienced only to mask the real reason they won’t vote for him–his race.</p></li>
<li><p>now, this point has less to do with racism and more with prejudice. gay marriage. the main republican argument is that gay marriage isn’t “traditional” or it isn’t “natural”. IMO, there is no merit to either of those arguments. anything progressive is, by nature, not traditional. i.e: factories, chemistry, integration. any positively percieved “revolutions” in modern history have not been considered “traditional”. when it comes to the “gay marriage isn’t natural” argument, well, neither is chemically altered food! neither are skyscrapers, airplanes, vehicles, pesticides. many industries that are supported by republicans (as well as others) are by no means natural. and yet none of these products/industries are protested against in the same way that gay marriage is.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>any thoughts on these issues? also, correct me if i’m wrong on any of the above mentioned points–im no expert on the republican platform.</p>

2

<p>Republican platform originally was anti-racism, anti-strong central government (gay marriage, etc) as far as I know history.</p>

<p>Now, politicians have gotten crazy and began substituting reasonable thinking with clicheish phrases and pseudopatriotic calls to pathos.</p>

<p>I'm against Obama by the way and I believe that a man has reason to call him unexperienced since he is only 45. However, experienced/unexperienced is subjective. </p>

<p>Does it matter? What matters is an opinion of majority, of the US people.</p>

3

<p>Hell, many great presidents have been unexperienced, if anything I think that is a plus rather than a negative. The longer politicians are in the game, normally the more corrupt or apathetic they become. </p>

<p>Some examples, Lincoln (thats pretty much all you need), Kennedy, Andrew Jackson...</p>

<p>To me, saying Obama has no experience is full of ****. Whatever makes people sleep at night.</p>

4

<p>I don't like Lincoln either. I think he was a douchebag. I would fight on side of Confederacy.</p>

<p><em>running away from angry mob</em></p>

5

<p>
[quote]
he has been in the illinois state senate or the US senate since 1996, so he has indeed spent a lot of time in washington.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, as a state senator he would have been in Springfield (the capital of Illinois) dealing with state issues; he's been in Washington only for the last four years dealing with national issues.</p>

6

<p>Republicans were the opposite a long time ago because the parties changed. The modern day parties are pretty much the opposite of what they were before. So saying what they WERE has nothing to do with what they ARE.</p>

<p>Obviously some republicans are bigots. The democrats have a woman, black, hispanic, ect...running for president. The republicans have old white men. Not all republicans are bigots...so don't get insulted. But many are. Rednecks and racists traditionally choose the republican party while minorities and feminists traditionally choose the Democrats. People who are more pro-equality are consistently Democrats. (Let me say again: Not all for either)</p>

<p>Ur initial points are true as are others. I do c people being anti-gay marriage as bigoted. If you cite the bible for gay-marriage then u are also pro creationism, slavery, feminine inferiority, ect...so don't cite the bible as ur only reason because the bible says many other things as well. You can't simply pick and choose which parts of the bible are correct. If it's God's word then everything is correct or you don't believe it is God's word which means none of it is. -I invite someone to make a valid point about why gay-marriage shouldn't be legalized without citing religion-</p>

<p>Immigration is fuzzier but I also agree that there are many racists who are against it. I think this country was founded on immigration and almost all of us are relatives of immigrants so I think that Mexicans (and others) should have easy access to becoming citizens. If people argue about the uneducated ones it's not like the uneducated ones are taking jobs from us because they are "ditch digging" anyway. But I also do c legitimate points on the other side...just not enough to outway my beliefs, esp b/c the other side harbors some racists.</p>

7

<p>Senators have more experience than most mayors and governors. They have international experience, and are actually in Washington D.C. Making or arguing about laws that effect the entire nation rather than a city or a state. </p>

<p>Can you say hypocrisy? </p>

<p>"I don't like Lincoln either. I think he was a douchebag. I would fight on side of Confederacy."</p>

<p>Think what you want, but he did some great things. Some unconstitutional things also, remember, he was not technically for anti-slavery, he was pro unity.</p>

8

<p>
[quote]
I don't like Lincoln either. I think he was a douchebag. I would fight on side of Confederacy."</p>

<p>Think what you want, but he did some great things. Some unconstitutional things also, remember, he was not technically for anti-slavery, he was pro unity.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, it's either you are for Washington or Lincoln. I like Washington more.</p>

<p>Explaining why the dilemma:</p>

<p>Case One: US (Washington) wants freedom from England while keeping slavery which was abolished in England: that was highly patriotic act.
Case Two: Confederacy wants freedom from Union (Lincoln) while keeping slavery which was abolished in Union: damn'd rebels, aye?</p>

9

<p>
[quote]
1. i was listening to conservative talk radio, and a respected republican figure (dennis prager, i believe) INSISTED that all hispanic immigrants must speak english 24/7. his argument was something along the lines of, "they are in America now, they need to learn american ways and speak in the american tongue. they need to act american". to me, this seems overly harsh. not only is it hard to learn english, but it's unfair to expect these people to "americanize" and completely forget/lose their native culture! besides, what exactly are "american ways"? such a statement is tantamount to the belief that no american is unique--that we all act in the same way.

[/quote]
Assimilation is the end goal. Becoming American is an end goal. To require it seems a bit heavy handed.</p>

<p>
[quote]
2. the broad mcarthurism that barack obama is inexperienced. excuse me, the man graduated magna cum laude from harvard law. he is 45 years old, which is considered middle-aged. he has been in the illinois state senate or the US senate since 1996, so he has indeed spent a lot of time in washington. the "inexperienced" misconception continues to thrive in part because Obama appears younger than he really is. im not sure about this, but my theory is that republicans (as well as others) claim that obama is inexperienced only to mask the real reason they won't vote for him--his race.

[/quote]
The people most likely not to vote for Obama likely wouldn't have voted for a democrat anyway. I'd reckon that Hillary and Edwards are gonna be the ones slamming him for being inexperienced...</p>

<p>It's highly likely that people won't vote for him solely because of his race - that's their choice obviously. I think most issues involving race with Obama can simply be traced to his autobiography, where he almost seems to "be suspicious" of white people (you know, the majority of this country).</p>

<p>
[quote]
3. now, this point has less to do with racism and more with prejudice. gay marriage. the main republican argument is that gay marriage isn't "traditional" or it isn't "natural". IMO, there is no merit to either of those arguments. anything progressive is, by nature, not traditional. i.e: factories, chemistry, integration. any positively percieved "revolutions" in modern history have not been considered "traditional". when it comes to the "gay marriage isn't natural" argument, well, neither is chemically altered food! neither are skyscrapers, airplanes, vehicles, pesticides. many industries that are supported by republicans (as well as others) are by no means natural. and yet none of these products/industries are protested against in the same way that gay marriage is.

[/quote]
What is this rambling. People don't support gay marriage because they are religious or subscribe to the common Judeo-Christian belief system. Hence, why many African Americans have gone against gay marriage even though they are 90% democratic.</p>

<p>
[quote]
any thoughts on these issues? also, correct me if i'm wrong on any of the above mentioned points--im no expert on the republican platform.

[/quote]
Republicanism like correlates to white racism.</p>

10

<p>Let me just say that I love being stereotyped. /sarcasm</p>

<p>You would think that the academic community would be smarter than to assume things about specific groups of people.</p>

11

<p>
[quote]
Case One: US (Washington) wants freedom from England while keeping slavery which was abolished in England: that was highly patriotic act.
Case Two: Confederacy wants freedom from Union (Lincoln) while keeping slavery which was abolished in Union: damn'd rebels, aye?

[/quote]

Only one problem:
100 year difference.</p>

<p>It was once acceptable to beat your wife. However, if a bunch of people campaigned for the right to hit their wives today, we would call them heartless lunatics. </p>

<p>If slavery was widely accepted during the time of the revolution, it sure as hell wasn't by the time the Civil War had started. Slavery, and the sectionalism resulting from it, was one of the major things holding America's progress back.</p>

12

<p>Don't you think slavery was also holding the progress of colonies 100 years ago?</p>

<p>If proclaimed-US would lose the war, loss of national spirit would let Britain take the control over all colonies. The grip would be much more stronger than before DoI and slaves would be free.</p>

<p>Yes, US people would have to pay crazy stamp act taxes and succumb under rule of the king. But people wouldn't treat other people like animals.</p>

13

<p>I agree with klf. </p>

<p>Knock it off with the bashing of Republicans on CC. It's really getting old now. We get it: you hate republicans. </p>

<p>Also, yes, I'm a conservative (huge difference between "conservative" and "republican") and I don't feel the need to follow the Republican party 100%, or take conservative talk radio as "the truth".</p>

14

<p>Smurfgirl, I'm glad I'm not alone.</p>

15

<p>"Also, yes, I'm a conservative (huge difference between "conservative" and "republican") and I don't feel the need to follow the Republican party 100%, or take conservative talk radio as "the truth"."</p>

<p>I, too, consider myself fiscally conservative. In my first post, I made it a point to state that I'm only refering to SOME republicans and i recognize that not ALL republicans agree with those ideas. i clearly stated: </p>

<p>"i'm not trying to insult anybody, and i'm sure not all republicans agree with these ideas, im simply pointing out an observation."</p>

<p>even if you didn't take the time to read the whole post (which you obviously didn't), the title pretty much implies it all: SOME republican ideas seem racist.</p>

<p>(some.)</p>

16

<p>"Well, it's either you are for Washington or Lincoln. I like Washington more.</p>

<p>Explaining why the dilemma:</p>

<p>Case One: US (Washington) wants freedom from England while keeping slavery which was abolished in England: that was highly patriotic act.
Case Two: Confederacy wants freedom from Union (Lincoln) while keeping slavery which was abolished in Union: damn'd rebels, aye?"</p>

<p>Wow, you need to brush up on your American History. If you knew anything about Washington, it was that he wanted the US to be a country, at the time when he sort of allowed(not that he could do anything about slavery) it, the country was fragile. Hell, the country was so weak and young that it Wash himself urged future presidents for a neutrality from all wars until the US could get on its feet. The list of priorities back then were as follows;</p>

<ol>
<li>Establishing a union between the colonies</li>
<li><p>Food and become prosperous etc...</p></li>
<li><p>Slavery</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Remember, at the time when Washington was president, slavery was not even that big. The cotton gin had yet to be invented by Whitney.</p>

<p>Also, if you must know, Washington freed his slaves. The only reason why slavery was legalized in the Const. was because of the fact that, without the compromise the country would not have formed. </p>

<p>You're not making much sense. </p>

<p>To the republican bashers, I agree, stop. I have nothing against republicans and on some issues I find myself to agree.</p>

17

<p>Ya that's very true about the historical part. Saying u have to pick one or the other is definitely not true.</p>

<p>Sry if you republicans feel bashed. It's more of the ideas I am against, not the people...I have many republican friends (unless you are super racist...then you...otherwise it's the ideas lol).</p>

18

<p>
[quote]
-I invite someone to make a valid point about why gay-marriage shouldn't be legalized without citing religion-

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There are academics who argue that gay marriage should not be legalized, and they don't cite religion.</p>

<p>Stanley Kurtz, who once taught at Harvard, argues that "The real danger of gay marriage is that it will undermine the taboo on adultery, thereby destroying the final bastion protecting marriage: the ethos of monogamy."</p>

<p>" First, gay marriage threatens monogamy because homosexual couples — particularly male homosexual couples — tend to see monogamy as nonessential, even to the most loyal and committed relationships."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz043003.asp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz043003.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

19

<p>1) Requiring people to become accustomed to English is not racist. Any non-Anglophone immigrant, whether he is from Latin America, Africa, Europe, or Asia would face pressure to adopt English and Americanize. There's nothing racist about this.</p>

<p>2) Raising concern over Obama's inexperience seems like a legitimate political flaw. People also griped about Lincoln and Kennedy's inexperience, and they were both White.</p>

<p>3) Gay rights is largely a White issue.</p>

20

<p>Blame it on the neocons. They've taken over the world =o</p>