4 ms·

I hate the treacly, overly politically correct world of today, but these WASPs of the past that the chap in the article is lamenting so much were pure, unabashe

I hate the treacly, overly politically correct world of today, but these WASPs of the past that the chap in the article is lamenting so much were pure, unabashed racists. For this reason alone, I'm bloody glad they're not in power. "The last unashamed WASP to live in the White House was Franklin Delano Roosevelt" Yeah, a shameless person who refused to meet black athletes, including Jesse Owens after the '36 Olympics (even Mr. Godwin's Law is rumoured to have shaken hands with Owens), and was responsible for the Sith-sounding Executive Order for internment of Japanese Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066). We're much better off without this sort of rubbish in power. Good riddance.

untilHellbanned 13y ago
I'll take not shaking Jesse Owens hand and harsh treatment of Japanese over what could be our world today...Nazis, Communism. Cmon.
- rtpg 13y ago
  how about neither? It's possible to not be a racist and still lead a country, especially a country built on the backs of immigrants.
  - untilHellbanned 13y ago
    see zeteo's comment above
  - omonra 13y ago
    No, it's not possible. To lead a country one has to be elected - hence his public position must reflect core beliefs of the majority of the electorate.
    - saraid216 13y ago
      Not actually true. People usually vote for the candidate who more closely reflects themselves, yes, but the fact that that candidate got up and got nominated already puts them a world of difference away from the "majority of the electorate". One of the core beliefs of this electorate, after all, is that politicians are liars.
zeteo 13y ago
> these WASPs of the past that the chap in the article is lamenting so much were pure, unabashed racists And sexist and elitist - but not more so than the society they lived in. Holding them to the norms accepted today is about as pertinent as calling them uncool because they lacked iPhones. Plus, it erases distinction between people like Lincoln who, while expressing very racist views, did a lot to bring things closer to equality; and others like say John C. Calhoun, who did their utmost to push the opposite way. History makes no sense unless you take it in context, my friend.
- parennoob 13y ago
  Holding them to the norms accepted today is about as pertinent as calling them uncool because they lacked iPhones. No, screw that. If they were racists, I am going to call them racists. I don't give a flying f--k that they "did a lot to bring things closer to equality". What am I supposed to do, be grateful? History makes no sense unless you take it in context, my friend. I'm not the one waxing eloquent about the demise of this ruling class -- the author is. My point is that it's a good thing that they are no longer in power, regardless of what historical context their (extremely flawed) behaviour might have been in.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    In the future, there is likely someone who will be equally able to look back at some primitive activity we're currently engaged in right now and call all of us idiots for some reason or another. If you eat meat, or plants, perhaps you'll be referred to as a barbarian. If you drive electric cars, perhaps you'll be called a planet killer. If you don't bathe in milk, perhaps you'll be called a Typhoid Mary. Ignoring the context of the times is a naive way to look at things. In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, and many rejoiced. In 2013, the Defense of Marriage Act was declared unconstitutional, and many rejoiced; in a lot of cases, the very same people. I was a complete homophobe in 1996, and attend rallies and champion gay rights in 2013. Society moves quickly now, but it didn't always. Yes, I was stupid for my homophobic ways in 1996, but so was almost everybody else. It's hard to hold an opinion, even one you know to be true, when everybody else disagrees with you. It's even harder to be the oddball that tries to advance the cause for equality. Just because the WASPs were once racists, that doesn't mean the same people would be now. Times change, and smart people change along with them. By not acknowledging that, the inverse of your argument is just as laughable. "those slaves of the past that the chap in the article is lamenting were totally spineless lackeys and yes men, completely subservient to white people. For this reason alone, I'm bloody glad that they're not in power."
dmix 13y ago
Those in power are the phony overly politically-correct types. People who get outraged when comedians say racist things at comedy shows, but then unfairly target black people in the war on drugs. Those not in prison get to enjoy stop and frisk's 100,000/year. Kids grow up with no fathers with single mothers on welfare. Rinse and repeat. The wealth gap between black people in America is higher right now than apartheid South Africa. So I wouldn't celebrate the end of racism by those in power. It just happens quietly now, with a phony smile.
- parennoob 13y ago
  > Those in power are the phony overly politically-correct types. Sure, but the guys described in the article are much more likely to have brushed the concerns of anyone but their own upper-class, Ivy League set under the carpet. No one is saying racism (or any other kind of disparity) is done -- as you said, it is very much alive underneath the surface, and often in a hypocritical manner; but there is basic equality under law, and policies like the one you described can be openly criticised.
- RodericDay 13y ago
  it's a mistake to throw left-wing types concerned with the impacts of casual, everyday racism adding up to systemic obstacles (etc. etc.) in the same bag as prudish types wanting to shield their kids from swear words and sex. they're very opposed groups, even if from the perspective of the South Park watcher they may seem allies. the former is almost always opposed to the war on drugs to go along with its righteous dismissal of low-brow racist jokes.
justin66 13y ago
> and was responsible for the Sith-sounding Executive Order for internment of Japanese Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066). IIRC there were just two national-level politicians who publicly took a stand against the internment order: Norman Thomas, the head of the Socialist Party (edit: and very much a WASP!), and the Republican governor of some flyover state. Saying FDR was responsible for the internment is legally true but it might be rather myopic, especially as to the point you're trying to make about WASPs vs. everybody else.
ygmelnikova 13y ago
Do you not see the hypocrisy in your comment? Referring to a group of people as "rubbish" and "better off without this sort"? Of course, only a white person can be 'truly' racist. Now where is that link to the Indian diplomat oppressing their servant. Ah yeah, there it is.
victoro 13y ago
He was also responsible for the New Deal, Social Security, and much of the legislation that enabled blue collar Americans to bargain with their employers among other things. But yea, he was a racist and once approved a plan to unjustly victimize and temporarily detain a minority group (which was incredibly humane when compared to literally any other world super power's camps -- think Nazi Concentration camps, Soviet Gulags, and the incredibly terrible things the Japanese did to POW's and millions of Chinese) so he was a terrible person and in no way ahead of his time </sarcasm>.

untilHellbanned 13y ago

I'll take not shaking Jesse Owens hand and harsh treatment of Japanese over what could be our world today...Nazis, Communism. Cmon.

rtpg 13y ago
how about neither? It's possible to not be a racist and still lead a country, especially a country built on the backs of immigrants.
- untilHellbanned 13y ago
  see zeteo's comment above
- omonra 13y ago
  No, it's not possible. To lead a country one has to be elected - hence his public position must reflect core beliefs of the majority of the electorate.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    Not actually true. People usually vote for the candidate who more closely reflects themselves, yes, but the fact that that candidate got up and got nominated already puts them a world of difference away from the "majority of the electorate". One of the core beliefs of this electorate, after all, is that politicians are liars.

zeteo 13y ago

> these WASPs of the past that the chap in the article is lamenting so much were pure, unabashed racists And sexist and elitist - but not more so than the society they lived in. Holding them to the norms accepted today is about as pertinent as calling them uncool because they lacked iPhones. Plus, it erases distinction between people like Lincoln who, while expressing very racist views, did a lot to bring things closer to equality; and others like say John C. Calhoun, who did their utmost to push the opposite way. History makes no sense unless you take it in context, my friend.

parennoob 13y ago
Holding them to the norms accepted today is about as pertinent as calling them uncool because they lacked iPhones. No, screw that. If they were racists, I am going to call them racists. I don't give a flying f--k that they "did a lot to bring things closer to equality". What am I supposed to do, be grateful? History makes no sense unless you take it in context, my friend. I'm not the one waxing eloquent about the demise of this ruling class -- the author is. My point is that it's a good thing that they are no longer in power, regardless of what historical context their (extremely flawed) behaviour might have been in.
- bmelton 13y ago
  In the future, there is likely someone who will be equally able to look back at some primitive activity we're currently engaged in right now and call all of us idiots for some reason or another. If you eat meat, or plants, perhaps you'll be referred to as a barbarian. If you drive electric cars, perhaps you'll be called a planet killer. If you don't bathe in milk, perhaps you'll be called a Typhoid Mary. Ignoring the context of the times is a naive way to look at things. In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, and many rejoiced. In 2013, the Defense of Marriage Act was declared unconstitutional, and many rejoiced; in a lot of cases, the very same people. I was a complete homophobe in 1996, and attend rallies and champion gay rights in 2013. Society moves quickly now, but it didn't always. Yes, I was stupid for my homophobic ways in 1996, but so was almost everybody else. It's hard to hold an opinion, even one you know to be true, when everybody else disagrees with you. It's even harder to be the oddball that tries to advance the cause for equality. Just because the WASPs were once racists, that doesn't mean the same people would be now. Times change, and smart people change along with them. By not acknowledging that, the inverse of your argument is just as laughable. "those slaves of the past that the chap in the article is lamenting were totally spineless lackeys and yes men, completely subservient to white people. For this reason alone, I'm bloody glad that they're not in power."

dmix 13y ago

Those in power are the phony overly politically-correct types. People who get outraged when comedians say racist things at comedy shows, but then unfairly target black people in the war on drugs. Those not in prison get to enjoy stop and frisk's 100,000/year. Kids grow up with no fathers with single mothers on welfare. Rinse and repeat. The wealth gap between black people in America is higher right now than apartheid South Africa. So I wouldn't celebrate the end of racism by those in power. It just happens quietly now, with a phony smile.

parennoob 13y ago
> Those in power are the phony overly politically-correct types. Sure, but the guys described in the article are much more likely to have brushed the concerns of anyone but their own upper-class, Ivy League set under the carpet. No one is saying racism (or any other kind of disparity) is done -- as you said, it is very much alive underneath the surface, and often in a hypocritical manner; but there is basic equality under law, and policies like the one you described can be openly criticised.
RodericDay 13y ago
it's a mistake to throw left-wing types concerned with the impacts of casual, everyday racism adding up to systemic obstacles (etc. etc.) in the same bag as prudish types wanting to shield their kids from swear words and sex. they're very opposed groups, even if from the perspective of the South Park watcher they may seem allies. the former is almost always opposed to the war on drugs to go along with its righteous dismissal of low-brow racist jokes.

justin66 13y ago

> and was responsible for the Sith-sounding Executive Order for internment of Japanese Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066). IIRC there were just two national-level politicians who publicly took a stand against the internment order: Norman Thomas, the head of the Socialist Party (edit: and very much a WASP!), and the Republican governor of some flyover state. Saying FDR was responsible for the internment is legally true but it might be rather myopic, especially as to the point you're trying to make about WASPs vs. everybody else.

ygmelnikova 13y ago

Do you not see the hypocrisy in your comment? Referring to a group of people as "rubbish" and "better off without this sort"? Of course, only a white person can be 'truly' racist. Now where is that link to the Indian diplomat oppressing their servant. Ah yeah, there it is.

victoro 13y ago

He was also responsible for the New Deal, Social Security, and much of the legislation that enabled blue collar Americans to bargain with their employers among other things. But yea, he was a racist and once approved a plan to unjustly victimize and temporarily detain a minority group (which was incredibly humane when compared to literally any other world super power's camps -- think Nazi Concentration camps, Soviet Gulags, and the incredibly terrible things the Japanese did to POW's and millions of Chinese) so he was a terrible person and in no way ahead of his time </sarcasm>.