More persuasive but definitely not more destructive. Little r racist will never do anything even close to what Hitler did. If Big R racist get their way they'll do real persecution and genocide. Also, you're right little r racist do cloak themselves in dubious rationalizations. You also have to understand that rationalizations of that variety are often correct as well.
1.) Untrue. The "little r racists" are the ones who placed him into power and gave him the platform to be monstrous. Let that wash over you for a minute. If it weren't for them, he would have never been in the position to do the horrible things he did. They had long received all of his racial/ethnic "signaling" and dog whistling before he achieved power, and still championed him in spite of it and because of it. The "little r racists" are most certainly implicated in the atrocities carried out by Hitler.
2.) And the rationalizations may possess
some elements of truth, but are often grounded in a fair amount of histrionics, hysteria and hyperbole.
I spoke about this with my psych teacher a week ago. My Psych book and it appears you take a truth(bias, stero types are often wrong) and take it to a wrong extreme. All human groups(age, culture, gender, nerds, etc) aren't the same. Stero Types are almost always based on a truth. My Psych book basically says every little human group is exactly the same and anyone says otherwise is a bigot. I want to warn you not to think the same way. For example if you look at statistics and hip hop culture, you definitly shouldn't assume someone is racist if they feel threatened by a group of black dudes in hoods hanging out at night.
1.) Stereotypes may be based on "a" truth but are never "the" (absolute) truth and that is the problem; acting on them as if they are always true can lead to damaging consequences and repercussions for others. If a male employer in a STEM field buys into the stereotype that women are bad at math, that may lead him to block and deny talented, qualified women who are more than suitable for the job, thereby enforcing the disproportionate amount of women in STEM fields. Also, there have been studies done that show that stereotype threat, which is the threat of being viewed through the lens of a negative stereotype or the fear of doing something that would confirm that stereotype, causes the stereotyped to underperform.
2.) If I look at the "statistics," then I should be left with the impression that white people commit the majority of violent crimes (on sheer numbers alone), and so I should primarily fear a group of young white men hanging around on the corner late at night. If I look at the "statistics," then I'd also know that most violent crimes are perpetrated by/against people of the same race. And so again, I should be weary of young white men, first and foremost.
3.) As someone who is a long time listener of Hip Hop and the many different forms of it, I'm informed and balanced enough to understand that the vast majority of it does not espouse the wanton violation/assault/destruction of white people and others. I'm smart and balanced enough to understand that it is a form of art and expression, and that not every view or idea espoused directly reflects concrete events and motivations in the real world.
4.) But yes, if I were to succumb to implicit bias via the indoctrination and acculturation of a white hegemonic nation where black people have served as a perpetual underclass and scapegoat, then yes, I might make an instinctual snap judgment on a group of young black men hanging on a corner late at night and feel threatened.
Plenty of his followers are little and big r racist. Donald Trump himself doesn't appear to be a big r or little r racist. He's an arrogant a-hole and an exaggerator. That explains his two so called instances of racism; his statements about Mexican illegal immigrants being mostly bad people and ban on Muslim immigration. Big r racist see Donald Trump as their savior because the leftist media has wrongly painted Trump as a big R racist. How many big r racist loved Trump before he ran for President but was a celebrity?
I'm not denying the possibility Trump is a racist. Some of the guys he has hired to his cabinet or whatever lately makes me suspicious. But there's nothing he has done which is good evidence that he's racist.
I'm sorry but it's undeniable that Donald Trump is a racist if you actually pay attention to the things he's done. Let me quote myself from earlier in the thread:
If one were to play the semantics game and opt for a word like bigot over racist to describe Trump, fine, but racist still fits like a glove seeing as how he has voiced opinions and done things (recently and over the past few decades) that suggest he sees certain racial/ethnic groups as inferior. For example:
1.) It was racist when he/his father refused to rent to black people and systematically discriminated against them--The Department of Justice (under a Republican President) agreed. A corroborating story just broke the other day where a former Trump rental agent said that Fred Trump, with a young Donald by his side, unequivocally told him "I don't sell to n*ggers." And according to the agent, Donald just quietly nodded in agreement. With a father like that as a role model....
2.) It was racist when he said this about a black accountant: "Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control."
3.) It was racist when he transferred black and women dealers off tables at his casinos to accommodate a big-time gambler’s prejudices--The Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino had to pay a $200,000 fine because it.
Notice a trend?
Donald Trump actually did and said these things, these
racist things. I don't know what further proof some of you need. This, by itself, speaks volumes. It's indefensible.
I agree with a lot of what you say but some of your believes are wrong. "Sense of entitlement". What? There's no sense of entitlement. White Americans don't have a sense of entitlement or believe they should have privilege. Those are both leftist oberservations on society which are true to an extent but few are conscious of them.
Where did I say that the sense of entitlement was necessarily "conscious?" For one, people generally tend to hold implicit biases that favor their own ingroup, and so of course, those who have always held power and benefited from an unfair system are more inclined to rationalize away the "unfairness" or any semblance of culpability. When Trump or the KKK or Neo-Nazis or White Nationalists and their sympathizers say things like "we have to take our country back," who do they want to take it back from? Why are they under the impression that it was ever solely "theirs" in the first place? How is that not a sense of entitlement? I don't think that most Americans are as conscious of this deeply embedded sentiment as some others may be, but it certainly exists on some level. How could it not? Anyone who understands how power dynamics often affect the psyche, understands this--power is not an easy thing to relinquish and especially when one's acculturation and socialization have fueled the belief that said power is deserved.
White Privilege should be called Minority Deprivation. In 1776 ~100% of American free people were white. The first time there was a decent amount of free non-whites was 1865. The first time whites feel under 80% was in the last 40 years. Today there is a large amount of non-whites, almost 40% of Americans. However still most live in cities. The majority of American land is majority white. The majority of almost everything in the public sphere is white. So, being white has and still sort of is the norm in America. The word "Privilage" suggests a small minority, like rich kids, get things the masses don't. That isn't the case with whites because they're the majority.
You seem to misunderstand what "white privilege" entails. At the most basic level, it simply comes down to being given the benefit of the doubt. For example, studies have shown that job applications with a "black sounding name" are disregarded and discounted far more likely than those with white sounding names, even when all of the qualifications are the same. White people and black people use drugs at similar rates and yet black people are more likely to be stopped, arrested and convicted. White Stanford rapist Brock Turner received the benefit of the doubt from a judge who believed that he was fundamentally a good kid that made a mistake and shouldn't suffer the rest of his life for said mistake--black males in similar situations usually fair far worse. The point is that white people have "privilege" from being given the benefit of the doubt. "White privilege" does not necessarily imply that whites all live some affluent, decadent lifestyles at the expense of non-whites.
Let me say a lot of what you say about race and I'm focusing on what I dis agree with. "On the backs of others". Give me a break. That's is anti-white bull crap. It's correct to say since the 1500s European powers have oppressed many non-Europeans but to say all European's accomplishments and power was made "on the backs of others" is historical fantasy.
Please stop putting words in my mouth. Where did I say that "all" European accomplishments came on the backs of others? For one, to keep this conversation within the proper context, we are speaking about the USA, a country whose very beginning involves the displacement and disenfranchisement of the indigenous natives. Want more? Read Simon Schama's "Rough Crossings: The Slaves, the British, and the American Revolution" and you'll learn that a significant factor in the revolutionary war was that the colonies feared that the British would abolish slavery, thereby stifling much of their economic development, and particularly in the South. Much of the wealth that made America a world power was wealth garnered by way of the enslavement and subjugation of others.
And later on, Irish, Jewish, Eastern European and Italian immigrants would benefit from the relegation of blacks to a lesser, more disenfranchised status. The New Deal and things like the G.I. Bill essentially functioned as affirmative action for immigrants. In a recent study, it was found that New Dealers often intentionally made welfare programs available to immigrants (particularly European immigrants) regardless of their citizenship or even their legal status. European immigrants like Italians were at times New Deal programs’ biggest beneficiaries. Regarding Social Security, which initially failed to cover certain types of work (in which, not coincidentally, African Americans were disproportionately represented), European immigrants were more likely than even native-born whites to work in occupations covered by Social Security, and they were also more likely to be nearing retirement when the program was instituted. Consequently, they ended up contributing little to the system but by design benefited almost as much as those who would contribute their whole working lives. For retirees of European origin, Social Security was more akin to welfare than insurance but without the means test and without the stigma.
My point is not that European Americans were never innovative or that they didn't work hard, but that they most certainly
benefited from an unfair system that privileged some and disenfranchised others. This is undeniable.
