Trump tells minority Congresswomen to "go back where they came from"

[Straha]

I'll be honest, I've read and listened to so much Tuck and Yang in my life that my eyes glaze over when I see them mentioned. So I probably just skipped past that link. They're good writers, and deserve both to be respected and read, but if I'm not reading them for work I'll find someone else to read instead.

[Straha]

Not to pull my New Yorker card here, but they never 'lost' Salamanca. It was always on Native Land, always recognized as being in a reservation, with a century's worth of explicit legal precedent saying that they had a landlord-lessee relationship with the people on it, backed by contracts and statutes. When they contractually had the right to raise the rent they raised the rent. People sued to have them not raise the rent. At no point was this truly a natives rights case as much as it was a contracts case.

Nope, the Seneca not only established that they had a legal right to the land, they also established a legal right to "improvements" upon that land. Meaning that with the stroke of a pen they got the land AND the buildings and that was definitely a change in the game.

I'm going to leave responding to the rest of your post until after you respond to some of the other responses to your far more troubling statements. I do want to respond to this though, because you're just plain wrong. Here is the court case that addresses this. I am going to give a chronological summary from that case, quoting directly from it.

• " 1790, at the urging of President George Washington, the United States Congress passed the first Indian Trade and Intercourse Act, 1 Stat. 137, which required federal approval of all land transactions with Native American tribes."
• [In 1842] " the Iroquois were displaced from areas south of Buffalo, but among other things, the SNI retained ownership of the Allegany and Cattaraugus Reservations."
• "Throughout the mid-1800s, white settlers began to settle in a certain area of the Allegany Reservation, located at the junction of three major inter-continental railroads. This junction and settlement became what is now known as the city of Salamanca in the County of Cattaraugus in the State of New York."
• "Early settlers entered into property leases with the SNI to remain on the land. Prior to 1875, however, a New York state court invalidated the leases because the SNI, a Native American tribe, did not have congressional authority to lease land. ... Congress remedied that legal deficiency by adopting the "Act of 1875". The Act of 1875, among other things, ratified then-existing leases and established that they would be valid until February 19, 1880. "
• "The Act of 1875 also provided that the leases were "renewable for periods not exceeding twelve years . . . on such conditions as may be agreed upon." If the parties could not agree on lease renewal terms, the Act of 1875 provided that "referees" of the SNI, the leaseholder, and a third person would determine the terms. Id. The determination of the "referees" was to be "final and binding" on the parties."
• "When the leases expired in 1880, the SNI renewed them for twelve years in accordance with the Act of 1875. .... With these leases set to again expire on February 19, 1892, Congress unilaterally extended the renewal period of the leases to 99 years in the "Act of 1890". Accordingly, the SNI again renewed the leases of approximately 3,000 individuals for the 99-year term, set to expire on February 19, 1991. Id. The average rent on these leases was a nominal amount, between $1 and $10 annually, and did not increase over the entire 99-year term of the leases."
• "In 1969, anticipating the expiration of these 99-year leases, the City of Salamanca created the Salamanca Indian Lease Authority ("SILA") to negotiate new leases with the SNI. ... After twenty years of negotiation, SILA and the SNI reached an agreement on July 13, 1990 ("Agreement"). The Agreement provided that (1) the United States and the state of New York would pay a combined $60 million to SNI to remedy the severe value inequities of the 99-year leases, (2) the SNI would offer new leases to the then-existing lessees with a term of forty years, renewable for another forty years at fair market value ("40/40 leases"), and (3) the 40/40 leases would reserve a future determination on ownership of land improvements."
• [Some towns folk "argued that they possessed property rights to both renew the leases via arbitration and own the improvements on the land." The Second Circuit disagreed... [saying] "the 1875 Act does not authorize a perpetual renewal, and without clear language to that effect, we will not construe the statute to confer such a right."
• "Some of the unsuccessful plaintiffs, nevertheless, refused to accept the 40/40 leases, and refused to vacate the land when the 99-year leases expired. On May 5, 1995, therefore, the United States brought an action in the Western District of New York on behalf of the SNI to eject these individuals. The magistrate recommended that judgment be entered for the SNI because (1) the SNI owned the land; (2) the individuals had no right to renew their leases pursuant to the prior decisions; (3) the SNI was not a necessary party to the ejectment because the United States represented their interests; and (4) the SNI had been wrongfully denied possession of their property by the defendants."

In other words, no. The Seneca were never seen as not owning the land. The only questions of 'Indian Law' were about the US setting the initial terms of the leases unilaterally, helping to pay for 'lost rent,' and the US acting as the evictors as opposed to Seneca Police. Everything else was either statutory interpretation or rather simple property law.

[MarxII]

It doesn't help that the field jargon of critical race studies tends to map to overwhelmingly inflammatory statements in common usage, for instance the last time this blew up it was over an apparent call for all white people to die, and it was not at all clear that what was meant was culture rather than people (if indeed that was what the author of the original article meant; I'm still not 100% convinced of that given he never said so himself). In instances such as that, sure, people could take to Google and figure it out if they knew explicitly what to look for and what parameters to use to narrow the search, but the more likely reaction is to take it at face value given that it doesn't appear to be technical jargon.

I'm gradually coming around to the idea that what you describe is not an accidental thing, in all cases. I'm beginning to think that this conflation in the minds of a prospective reader, or at least a layperson coming across arguments, phrases or slogans et cetera, might have some incentive behind it.

[Effie]

It doesn't help that the field jargon of critical race studies tends to map to overwhelmingly inflammatory statements in common usage, for instance the last time this blew up it was over an apparent call for all white people to die, and it was not at all clear that what was meant was culture rather than people (if indeed that was what the author of the original article meant; I'm still not 100% convinced of that given he never said so himself). In instances such as that, sure, people could take to Google and figure it out if they knew explicitly what to look for and what parameters to use to narrow the search, but the more likely reaction is to take it at face value given that it doesn't appear to be technical jargon.

I'm gradually coming around to the idea that what you describe is not an accidental thing, in all cases. I'm beginning to think that this conflation in the minds of a prospective reader, or at least a layperson coming across arguments, phrases or slogans et cetera, might have some incentive behind it.

Would you mind elaborating?

[Straha]

It doesn't help that the field jargon of critical race studies tends to map to overwhelmingly inflammatory statements in common usage, for instance the last time this blew up it was over an apparent call for all white people to die, and it was not at all clear that what was meant was culture rather than people (if indeed that was what the author of the original article meant; I'm still not 100% convinced of that given he never said so himself). In instances such as that, sure, people could take to Google and figure it out if they knew explicitly what to look for and what parameters to use to narrow the search, but the more likely reaction is to take it at face value given that it doesn't appear to be technical jargon.

I'm gradually coming around to the idea that what you describe is not an accidental thing, in all cases. I'm beginning to think that this conflation in the minds of a prospective reader, or at least a layperson coming across arguments, phrases or slogans et cetera, might have some incentive behind it.

I'm not sure what you're saying.

If it's that layperson readers who come across terms of art sometimes find them alienating and would rather cling to pre-ordained notions of meaning rather than try to grapple what's being said, and will get defensive about that move to defend their ideology. Then, yes. Yes that happens. More on that in a bit.

If it's that writers in fields like Critical Race Theory pick terms deliberately with the hope of instigating people, the answer is not really. Terms of Art in specialized discourse go back to the beginning of language, we know that the Egyptians used them in both political and theological senses (hell, even the term Pharaoh is a synechdoche.) Authors pick them because there are common occurrences that recur that it makes sense to have a somewhat specialized language for, so that basics don't have to be re-explained and prose can be condensed, and because authors tend to want them to circulate they are often easy to understand on their face, and directly descriptive. Soft Power, used in the realm of International Relations scholars to represent non-military influence (as opposed to direct force, which is called Hard Power) is perhaps the most easy to get immediately. Settler Move to Innocence, the description of how settlers will often recognize that they are part of a broader systemic horror but try to immediately find ways to excuse themselves of that horror, is much the same. Once you get the concept the phrase makes sense, and having a phrase to use to discuss it makes writing a lot easier. (see also: Commodity Fetishism, Supply/Demand, Natal Alienation, etc. The list is practically endless.)

Now, is this writing immediately accessible to laypeople? No. But they're not the audience for this type of writing, other people who have at least a passing familiarity with the field and a buy-in to the language being used are. If someone comes along, tries to read this and finds this terminology so deeply off-putting that they won't even bother to google the phrase it's not the prose's fault, it's because they're a bad reader and one that shouldn't be catered towards. Admittedly, there are times when authors will 'dumb it down' to be accessible to a lay audience, but that in itself is a specialized style of writing and, tellingly, it exists an easy google search away.

I suppose the unasked question is: is this thread a place to use specialized language? The answer is, if you think you have something to say about decolonization and want to be taken seriously across a dozen+ posts it should be expected that you're at least conversant in this field. If you're not, and you're so lazy to not be bothered to google something, you're not taking the questions being raised seriously and you're not a thinker, you're a bullshitter. And why should a bullshitter be taken seriously?

[Straha]

Btw, for those of you who want to seriously double down on the "Trump's rhetoric is an aberration from recent Presidents." I present you this recent article:

The day after the United Nations voted to recognize the People’s Republic of China, then–California Governor Ronald Reagan phoned President Richard Nixon at the White House and vented his frustration at the delegates who had sided against the United States. “Last night, I tell you, to watch that thing on television as I did,” Reagan said. “Yeah,” Nixon interjected. Reagan forged ahead with his complaint: “To see those, those monkeys from those African countries—damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes!” Nixon gave a huge laugh.

[The Romulan Republic]

Btw, for those of you who want to seriously double down on the "Trump's rhetoric is an aberration from recent Presidents." I present you this recent article:

The day after the United Nations voted to recognize the People’s Republic of China, then–California Governor Ronald Reagan phoned President Richard Nixon at the White House and vented his frustration at the delegates who had sided against the United States. “Last night, I tell you, to watch that thing on television as I did,” Reagan said. “Yeah,” Nixon interjected. Reagan forged ahead with his complaint: “To see those, those monkeys from those African countries—damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes!” Nixon gave a huge laugh.

Well, its telling that you have to go back fifty years to the Nixon era (arguably, along with Andrew Johnson, the closest historical parallel to the Trump Presidency), and conflate comments, however disgusting, made in a private conversation with those made publicly and in official statements, in order to push your narrative that Trump is nothing worth getting worked up about because they're all just as bad". (a narrative which ultimately serves to feed cynicism and apathy and stifle resistance to fascism).

And even then, since your examples are Nixon and Reagan, it comes off less as "Presidents have always been this bad" and more as "Republican Presidents have always been this bad".

[loomer]

I'll be honest, I've read and listened to so much Tuck and Yang in my life that my eyes glaze over when I see them mentioned. So I probably just skipped past that link. They're good writers, and deserve both to be respected and read, but if I'm not reading them for work I'll find someone else to read instead.

Fair enough! I have the same reaction to certain legal scholars.

[loomer]

Not to pull my New Yorker card here, but they never 'lost' Salamanca. It was always on Native Land, always recognized as being in a reservation, with a century's worth of explicit legal precedent saying that they had a landlord-lessee relationship with the people on it, backed by contracts and statutes. When they contractually had the right to raise the rent they raised the rent. People sued to have them not raise the rent. At no point was this truly a natives rights case as much as it was a contracts case.

Nope, the Seneca not only established that they had a legal right to the land, they also established a legal right to "improvements" upon that land. Meaning that with the stroke of a pen they got the land AND the buildings and that was definitely a change in the game.

I'm going to leave responding to the rest of your post until after you respond to some of the other responses to your far more troubling statements. I do want to respond to this though, because you're just plain wrong. Here is the court case that addresses this. I am going to give a chronological summary from that case, quoting directly from it.

In other words, no. The Seneca were never seen as not owning the land. The only questions of 'Indian Law' were about the US setting the initial terms of the leases unilaterally, helping to pay for 'lost rent,' and the US acting as the evictors as opposed to Seneca Police. Everything else was either statutory interpretation or rather simple property law.

Isn't it funny how when the ordinary law of property, leasehold, and improvement ownership is applied to Settlers on tribal lands the same as anywhere else - I mean this is a scenario that has played out more or less identically save for the statutory intervention on the basis of race thousands of times across three continents, whatever it's justice or lack of - it's suddenly 'changing the game'? It's as though there's a covert assumption in play that property rights and laws are something for settlers, not Indigenous peoples...

[Straha]

Btw, for those of you who want to seriously double down on the "Trump's rhetoric is an aberration from recent Presidents." I present you this recent article:

The day after the United Nations voted to recognize the People’s Republic of China, then–California Governor Ronald Reagan phoned President Richard Nixon at the White House and vented his frustration at the delegates who had sided against the United States. “Last night, I tell you, to watch that thing on television as I did,” Reagan said. “Yeah,” Nixon interjected. Reagan forged ahead with his complaint: “To see those, those monkeys from those African countries—damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes!” Nixon gave a huge laugh.

Well, its telling that you have to go back fifty years to the Nixon era (arguably, along with Andrew Johnson, the closest historical parallel to the Trump Presidency), and conflate comments, however disgusting, made in a private conversation with those made publicly and in official statements, in order to push your narrative that Trump is nothing worth getting worked up about because they're all just as bad". (a narrative which ultimately serves to feed cynicism and apathy and stifle resistance to fascism).

And even then, since your examples are Nixon and Reagan, it comes off less as "Presidents have always been this bad" and more as "Republican Presidents have always been this bad".

Hoo boy. Lot to unpack here.

Let's start at the last clause and work our way back.

1. Suppose you're right, that it's just that Republican Presidents have always been that bad? That means by your calculation 28 of the last 51 years have had a racist in the White House and the party that represents a not insignificant chunk of the American populace are racist. That seems to indicate that this isn't an aberration from the American norm.

2. This was explored above, but I'd love to see you try and advance the claim that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton didn't strategically and tactically use anti-black racism to their benefit. Also, the article itself mentions Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was a leading Democrat in the senate for 20+ years and one of the intellectual thought leaders of the party.

3. I find it fascinating that you somehow take umbrage at the idea that we should hold politicians to account for what they're saying in private. The idea that Reagan and Nixon's private racism which, in this case at the very least, explicitly informed their public policy is somehow more acceptable than the public racism of Trump is appalling. You really just want the quiet part quiet part again, and don't seem to give a shit about the rest.

4. I also find it fascinating that this is where you step back into the thread and declare that this is feeding fascism. We literally have someone in this thread declaring that they want stability over justice in a reply about how that is the cornerstone of authoritarianism. We also have people staking the position outright that the American Populace is so fundamentally racist that they cannot be trusted around Native folk because there will be blood, and that only the Federal Government can be trusted to stop them. You have said... nothing about that. And yet here you are responding to this stomping your foot that this will lead to cynicism and fascism. Yiiiiiiiiikes.

[loomer]

It doesn't help that the field jargon of critical race studies tends to map to overwhelmingly inflammatory statements in common usage, for instance the last time this blew up it was over an apparent call for all white people to die, and it was not at all clear that what was meant was culture rather than people (if indeed that was what the author of the original article meant; I'm still not 100% convinced of that given he never said so himself). In instances such as that, sure, people could take to Google and figure it out if they knew explicitly what to look for and what parameters to use to narrow the search, but the more likely reaction is to take it at face value given that it doesn't appear to be technical jargon.

I'm gradually coming around to the idea that what you describe is not an accidental thing, in all cases. I'm beginning to think that this conflation in the minds of a prospective reader, or at least a layperson coming across arguments, phrases or slogans et cetera, might have some incentive behind it.

Sometimes it is indeed a deliberate strategy - the shock factor can break a hell of a lot of ice if you use it well. But I don't think that's the case here. Let's consider the particular phrase that motivated the puerile outburst around terminology: 'White moves to innocence'. Is this a shocking or inflammatory statement? I don't think so - not unless Whiteness is now so shocking that it cannot be discussed, in which case we have some serious problems on our hands! In this regard it is different to the article Rogue 9 refers to, where the shock value was intentional and the offensiveness thus legitimate.

What we instead see sometimes is a violent reaction to ideas that threaten the existing worldviews and narratives. If the Indian grandmother complex, to borrow Vine Deloria Jr's terminology, is no longer a viable way for Settlers to avoid responsibility for ongoing involvement in forms of dispossession and oppression - which is what the 'moves to innocence' consist of, ways of avoiding personal responsibility and guilt - then the house of cards begins to wobble. Wobble it enough and people react violently, regardless of the terminology. Thus, it doesn't matter how inflammatory or not the statement is - it becomes inflammatory to those who feel threatened by it, no matter how innocuous or offensive the words themselves.

[The Romulan Republic]

Btw, for those of you who want to seriously double down on the "Trump's rhetoric is an aberration from recent Presidents." I present you this recent article:

Well, its telling that you have to go back fifty years to the Nixon era (arguably, along with Andrew Johnson, the closest historical parallel to the Trump Presidency), and conflate comments, however disgusting, made in a private conversation with those made publicly and in official statements, in order to push your narrative that Trump is nothing worth getting worked up about because they're all just as bad". (a narrative which ultimately serves to feed cynicism and apathy and stifle resistance to fascism).

And even then, since your examples are Nixon and Reagan, it comes off less as "Presidents have always been this bad" and more as "Republican Presidents have always been this bad".

Hoo boy. Lot to unpack here.

Let's start at the last clause and work our way back.

1. Suppose you're right, that it's just that Republican Presidents have always been that bad? That means by your calculation 28 of the last 51 years have had a racist in the White House and the party that represents a not insignificant chunk of the American populace are racist. That seems to indicate that this isn't an aberration from the American norm.

A not insignificant chunk of the American electorate and populace are racist. That does not mean that Trump is indistinct from any other President, or that he does not represent a very dangerous shift in the direction of the country.

Also, I just love how you casually equate "One party is consistently racist" with "America as a whole is like this regardless of which party is in power." Slippery, very slippery.

2. This was explored above, but I'd love to see you try and advance the claim that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton didn't strategically and tactically use anti-black racism to their benefit. Also, the article itself mentions Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was a leading Democrat in the senate for 20+ years and one of the intellectual thought leaders of the party.

I am not arguing that no Democrat was ever racist. I'm not greatly familiar with Jimmy Carter's record on the subject of race, but I am well aware that Bill Clinton advanced policies that disproportionately hurt black people. And I've made my contempt for Bill Clinton quite clear on this forum on multiple occassions.

That said, neither of them embraced or tried to legitimize violent white supremacy, as Trump has. Nor did either of them to my knowledge ever try to prohibit entire classes of people from entering the US. These are important distinctions.

What you and many so-called progressives refuse to acknowledge is that it is possible to criticize individual politicians and policies without resorting to lazy, sweeping, and frankly dishonest generalizations like "Trump is no different from the norm". Generalizations that serve only to mute nuanced discussion, encourage cynicism and apathy, and ultimately normalize the worst aspects of politics. Instead, you try to deflect my criticism of your lazy generalizations by portraying it as defending or denying racism, as though a more nuanced analysis like "Some of Bill Clinton's policies were destructive to minorities, but Trump still represents a decisive step towards white supremacist totalitarianism" is tantamount to disloyalty to the cause. As though you can't genuinely criticize someone without treating them all as equally bad.

This is a dangerously one-dimensional approach to politics, to say the least. Frankly, it is the attitude which I believe contributed more than any other to making Donald Trump President, by making mindless cynicism a virtue and setting the ground work for rhetoric like "drain the swamp" and "Bernie or Bust" to be so effective.

3. I find it fascinating that you somehow take umbrage at the idea that we should hold politicians to account for what they're saying in private. The idea that Reagan and Nixon's private racism which, in this case at the very least, explicitly informed their public policy is somehow more acceptable than the public racism of Trump is appalling. You really just want the quiet part quiet part again, and don't seem to give a shit about the rest.

I try to have an honest and reasonable debate, and you put words in my mouth so that you can accuse me of supporting institutional racism.

Tell me, where have I ever said that politicians should never be held accountable for what they say in private? Where have I ever said that racism is okay as long as its quiet? What about my posting history would ever lead an honest and reasonable person to believe that I am indifferent to the issue of systemic racism, just because I approach the problem in a different way than you do?

At no point did I say that politicians should never be held accountable for what they say in private. That is a LIE. I said that there is a difference between saying something in a private conversation, and saying it in an official or public statement, and that those acts have different consequences. That is a FACT. But again, to you, such nuance is evidently proof of sympathizing with the enemy, because fanatics allow no room for nuance in their worldview.

After 9/11, it was "You're with us or your with the terrorists." Now its "You're with Straha or you support racism."

4. I also find it fascinating that this is where you step back into the thread and declare that this is feeding fascism. We literally have someone in this thread declaring that they want stability over justice in a reply about how that is the cornerstone of authoritarianism. We also have people staking the position outright that the American Populace is so fundamentally racist that they cannot be trusted around Native folk because there will be blood, and that only the Federal Government can be trusted to stop them. You have said... nothing about that. And yet here you are responding to this stomping your foot that this will lead to cynicism and fascism. Yiiiiiiiiikes.

As far as I can see, you are the one arguing here that the American populace is fundamentally racist. Arguing that the power of the Federal government is necessary to keep them in check is merely a logical extension of that view (as the First Nations Peoples simply do not have the numbers or the firepower to do so alone). Presuming anyone actually said anything like that, which given your history of misrepresenting posts and putting words in peoples' mouths to portray them as racist, seems questionable at best.

Give me a link and exact quote to the post you are referring to, and I'll tell you what my actual position on it is, as opposed to the straw man you have put in my mouth.

But let's be clear: I've put up with a lot of shit on this board. I will not put up with being branded a supporter of racism as a debating tactic, based on words other people put in my mouth. I realize that this puts me in a difficult position, because probably nobody is completely immune to racial bias, including me, and because racists often mask their racism behind words like "I'm not racist, but". And as a progressive and opponent of racism, I've called those people out, and refused to accept their excuses. So by defending myself now against what I regard as a dishonest charge of racism, I risk appearing as a hypocrite, and lending credence to your accusations against me. But I have to draw the line here. It is not okay to put words in my mouth to brand me as a supporter of in order to score easy points in a debate. It isn't anti-racist either: in fact I would argue that using false racism allegations as a debating tool can make it more difficult to get real allegations of racism taken seriously, and does a disservice to everyone who is a victim or opponent of discrimination.

If branding me as indifferent to, or actively supporting, racism is considered an acceptable debating tactic on this board, or if "You really just want the quiet part quiet again, and don't seem to give a shit about the rest." is seen as an honest characterization of my views, then I ask that the mods clarify that now, so that I can terminate my participation on this board. Indeed, if that is an accurate characterization of my views, the moderation team arguably should ban me as in violation of board rules against posting white supremacist rhetoric. If, however, it is not considered a fair characterization of my views, and libeling someone is not acceptable practice on this board, then I ask that the libeler be held accountable for his libel.

[Effie]

As far as I can see, you are the one arguing here that the American populace is fundamentally racist. Arguing that the power of the Federal government is necessary to keep them in check is merely a logical extension of that view (as the First Nations Peoples simply do not have the numbers or the firepower to do so alone). Presuming anyone actually said anything like that, which given your history of misrepresenting posts and putting words in peoples' mouths to portray them as racist, seems questionable at best.

You don't seem to see very well. I would suggest that any interpretation of Straha's words which suggests he's saying Americans are racist all in one lump, black and Native just as racist as white, requires some serious ideological blinders in place.

Even then, if we accept that by "Americans" you refer to settler Americans or white Americans primarily or exclusively and then adopt that usage, I don't see how a statement of decolonization such as Straha has made, which posits a possibility for decolonization and at least peaceful coexistence afterwards, assumes fundamental racism. If it did, the only options for decolonization would be removal or a police state. Is anyone proposing that in this thread, or anything like that? Have people not, in fact, specifically disavowed removal on multiple occasions? I don't understand your statement here.

It would be fairly explicable in terms of the notion of "white fragility", but I can hear the steam building up as I merely type that.

[Straha]

1. Suppose you're right, that it's just that Republican Presidents have always been that bad? That means by your calculation 28 of the last 51 years have had a racist in the White House and the party that represents a not insignificant chunk of the American populace are racist. That seems to indicate that this isn't an aberration from the American norm.

A not insignificant chunk of the American electorate and populace are racist. That does not mean that Trump is indistinct from any other President, or that he does not represent a very dangerous shift in the direction of the country.

If your contention is that republicans support racists in general, and that Republican Presidents engage in regular racist rhetoric and policy making then I'm at a bit off a loss as to how this represents a 'shift' at all.

It also means that Trump is absolutely not an aberration in terms of recent American history.

Also, I just love how you casually equate "One party is consistently racist" with "America as a whole is like this regardless of which party is in power." Slippery, very slippery.

Look, I know you don't want to read anything that challenges your preconceived notions, but the rest of the thread covers the 'America is fundamentally racist' concept quite well. Go read that, I'm not reinventing the wheel here.

This post was specifically about how Trump isn't an aberration even in the scope of recent American history. Saying 'One of the two parties that together control ballot access and politics across the country is fundamentally racist' seems to prove that I'm right in that claim.

That said, neither of them embraced or tried to legitimize violent white supremacy, as Trump has. Nor did either of them to my knowledge ever try to prohibit entire classes of people from entering the US. These are important distinctions.

Carter in '79 and '80 straight up banned Iranians, including those on immigrant visas, from coming into the country by Executive Order.

Bill Clinton made entire categories of migrants into the country retroactively deportable after he signed the IIRIRA and deportations tripled or quadrupled, depending on how you count them, in the immediate aftermath.

That's just off of the top of my head.

What you and many so-called progressives refuse to acknowledge is that it is possible to criticize individual politicians and policies without resorting to lazy, sweeping, and frankly dishonest generalizations like "Trump is no different from the norm". Generalizations that serve only to mute nuanced discussion, encourage cynicism and apathy, and ultimately normalize the worst aspects of politics.

Buddy, the point isn't that "Trump is no different from the norm," it's that the norm is fucking horrific and that Trump represents a part of that norm bubbling forth. To hyper-focus on Trump is to literally miss the forest for the orange tree, or, perhaps more aptly, to miss the disease by hyper-focusing on the symptom.

I'm also at a loss as to how you read a persistent and pointed attack on the structure of American politics as 'normalizing' it, or as somehow engendering apathy. If your response to people saying "America is built on a process of on-going ethnic cleansing" is to say that that makes what's being critiqued somehow acceptable and encourages people to become apathetic, then I have sincere questions about how you relate to the world around and your painting of the American populace as slackjawed in the face of atrocity is just appalling. The entire point of these critiques and this organizing is to end these processes and propel us into a better world, not to wallow in the present.

Seriously, it takes an Escherian twisting to say that critiquing something somehow normalizes and defends it.

3. I find it fascinating that you somehow take umbrage at the idea that we should hold politicians to account for what they're saying in private. The idea that Reagan and Nixon's private racism which, in this case at the very least, explicitly informed their public policy is somehow more acceptable than the public racism of Trump is appalling. You really just want the quiet part quiet part again, and don't seem to give a shit about the rest.

I try to have an honest and reasonable debate, and you put words in my mouth so that you can accuse me of supporting institutional racism.

Tell me, where have I ever said that politicians should never be held accountable for what they say in private? Where have I ever said that racism is okay as long as its quiet? What about my posting history would ever lead an honest and reasonable person to believe that I am indifferent to the issue of systemic racism, just because I approach the problem in a different way than you do?

This is the entirety of the substantive response you made: "its [sic] telling that you have to go back fifty years to the Nixon era... and conflate comments, however disgusting, made in a private conversation with those made publicly and in official statements, in order to push your narrative that Trump is nothing worth getting worked up about because they're all just as bad".

Your objection, in the text, boils down entirely to the claim that I am conflating statements made in public with statements made in private.

There is only one logical read of what you're saying here, and it's that public racism is worse than private racism. Otherwise there could be no 'conflation' between. And this is explicitly in the context of policy makers discussing policy making.

You cannot then turn around and say that you're holding private racism to the same standard as public racism, which is my point.


And if you're going to whinge about 'honest representation' as you do below, this is straight up a dishonest representation of my conclusion. The end point isn't that Trump is nothing to get worked up about. It's that the American system is something that we should be worked up about and something that should be dismantled. To read passivity into this is absurd.

At no point did I say that politicians should never be held accountable for what they say in private. That is a LIE. I said that there is a difference between saying something in a private conversation, and saying it in an official or public statement, and that those acts have different consequences. That is a FACT. But again, to you, such nuance is evidently proof of sympathizing with the enemy, because fanatics allow no room for nuance in their worldview.

Buddy, you cannot make the claim that public racism is worse than private racism without explicitly protecting private racists from the same opprobrium as public racists. That is, as you say, a Fact.

After 9/11, it was "You're with us or your with the terrorists." Now its "You're with Straha or you support racism."

I've finally made it big in the world!

4. I also find it fascinating that this is where you step back into the thread and declare that this is feeding fascism. We literally have someone in this thread declaring that they want stability over justice in a reply about how that is the cornerstone of authoritarianism. We also have people staking the position outright that the American Populace is so fundamentally racist that they cannot be trusted around Native folk because there will be blood, and that only the Federal Government can be trusted to stop them. You have said... nothing about that. And yet here you are responding to this stomping your foot that this will lead to cynicism and fascism. Yiiiiiiiiikes.

As far as I can see, you are the one arguing here that the American populace is fundamentally racist. Arguing that the power of the Federal government is necessary to keep them in check is merely a logical extension of that view (as the First Nations Peoples simply do not have the numbers or the firepower to do so alone). Presuming anyone actually said anything like that, which given your history of misrepresenting posts and putting words in peoples' mouths to portray them as racist, seems questionable at best.

Read the rest of the thread. You are again shooting from the hip with not even the smallest amount of knowledge.

What's amusing to me about this is that even in the portion of the thread where you were active you were responding to my clear position that the Federal Government is a fundamentally suspect and illegal entity. Now you try to posit me as defending it. Which is again fascinating coming from someone who makes as many accusations of dishonesty as you do.

Give me a link and exact quote to the post you are referring to, and I'll tell you what my actual position on it is, as opposed to the straw man you have put in my mouth.

You're missing the point. I don't care about the Received Wisdom of The Romulan Republic and the world is certainly not biting its lip waiting for the insight that you could bring. What I am pointing out is that your selectivity of what is rousing you to action speaks to what you care about, and what bothers you enough to trigger a response are attacks on American norms and on the American nation-state, not defenses of American stability via giving up claims to justice or defenses of the American state by reason of its necessity to suppress the latent racism in its populace. That shows a huge degree of cyncism towards what you're willing to tolerate as being 'on side' versus a really simplistic approach to what you'll attack, one that honestly comes across as a kind of simplistic nationalism.

But let's be clear: I've put up with a lot of shit on this board. I will not put up with being branded a supporter of racism as a debating tactic, based on words other people put in my mouth. I realize that this puts me in a difficult position, because probably nobody is completely immune to racial bias, including me, and because racists often mask their racism behind words like "I'm not racist, but". And as a progressive and opponent of racism, I've called those people out, and refused to accept their excuses. So by defending myself now against what I regard as a dishonest charge of racism, I risk appearing as a hypocrite, and lending credence to your accusations against me. But I have to draw the line here. It is not okay to put words in my mouth to brand me as a supporter of in order to score easy points in a debate. It isn't anti-racist either: in fact I would argue that using false racism allegations as a debating tool can make it more difficult to get real allegations of racism taken seriously, and does a disservice to everyone who is a victim or opponent of discrimination.

The world weeps for you.

If branding me as indifferent to, or actively supporting, racism is considered an acceptable debating tactic on this board, or if "You really just want the quiet part quiet again, and don't seem to give a shit about the rest." is seen as an honest characterization of my views, then I ask that the mods clarify that now, so that I can terminate my participation on this board. Indeed, if that is an accurate characterization of my views, the moderation team arguably should ban me as in violation of board rules against posting white supremacist rhetoric. If, however, it is not considered a fair characterization of my views, and libeling someone is not acceptable practice on this board, then I ask that the libeler be held accountable for his libel.

It really is fascinating to me that you constantly throw yourself to the Mods to try and seek validation, and the way you get so hyperbolic about perceived slights. The entire culture of this board (for better or worse) was always to have a thick skin and hack away at each other absent an interventionist regime. It's doubly interesting considering how your posting style, coupled with your wafer thin skin, would have absolutely made you a target in the old days for posters to viciously go after you for that temporary joy of provoking this response.

Seriously, and I mean this as a genuine concern, if your mental health is this tied up into the board you should consider taking a break from it. If the board doesn't bring joy, and it induces this kind of anxiety, it's not a good place to be. There's a reason why so many regulars have left, and why others only poke their head in from time to time.

[Straha]

>snip<
Double Post, please delete.

[MarxII]

I'm gradually coming around to the idea that what you describe is not an accidental thing, in all cases. I'm beginning to think that this conflation in the minds of a prospective reader, or at least a layperson coming across arguments, phrases or slogans et cetera, might have some incentive behind it.

I'm not sure what you're saying.

Fair enough, I admit my reply was not especially precise. Hopefully I can shed some light for you.

And you as well, Effie.

If it's that layperson readers who come across terms of art sometimes find them alienating and would rather cling to pre-ordained notions of meaning rather than try to grapple what's being said, and will get defensive about that move to defend their ideology. Then, yes. Yes that happens. More on that in a bit.

This isn't what I was referring to, but it's a tendency I've noticed as well. I'd even go so far as to say it can be and sometimes is done rather disingenuously. And though I'd dare not invoke Both Sides on this of all forums, I do view the reaction you describe as a kind of inverse of what I was referring to.

If it's that writers in fields like Critical Race Theory pick terms deliberately with the hope of instigating people, the answer is not really. Terms of Art in specialized discourse go back to the beginning of language, we know that the Egyptians used them in both political and theological senses (hell, even the term Pharaoh is a synechdoche.) Authors pick them because there are common occurrences that recur that it makes sense to have a somewhat specialized language for, so that basics don't have to be re-explained and prose can be condensed, and because authors tend to want them to circulate they are often easy to understand on their face, and directly descriptive. Soft Power, used in the realm of International Relations scholars to represent non-military influence (as opposed to direct force, which is called Hard Power) is perhaps the most easy to get immediately. Settler Move to Innocence, the description of how settlers will often recognize that they are part of a broader systemic horror but try to immediately find ways to excuse themselves of that horror, is much the same. Once you get the concept the phrase makes sense, and having a phrase to use to discuss it makes writing a lot easier. (see also: Commodity Fetishism, Supply/Demand, Natal Alienation, etc. The list is practically endless.)

Alright, fair enough. It's quite possible that I'm wrong, and that the number of academics and other professional writers in fields like Critical Race Theory who choose these terms in other than good faith is utterly insignificant.

Now, is this writing immediately accessible to laypeople? No. But they're not the audience for this type of writing, other people who have at least a passing familiarity with the field and a buy-in to the language being used are. If someone comes along, tries to read this and finds this terminology so deeply off-putting that they won't even bother to google the phrase it's not the prose's fault, it's because they're a bad reader and one that shouldn't be catered towards. Admittedly, there are times when authors will 'dumb it down' to be accessible to a lay audience, but that in itself is a specialized style of writing and, tellingly, it exists an easy google search away.

Would you say there's largely the same degree of consensus as to the meaning of these terms as there is for any other one would look up?

I suppose the unasked question is: is this thread a place to use specialized language? The answer is, if you think you have something to say about decolonization and want to be taken seriously across a dozen+ posts it should be expected that you're at least conversant in this field. If you're not, and you're so lazy to not be bothered to google something, you're not taking the questions being raised seriously and you're not a thinker, you're a bullshitter. And why should a bullshitter be taken seriously?

I see your point here, but I'm not entirely sure I follow your conclusion all the way. While it certainly makes for a more productive exchange if all parties have at least a clear understanding of the terms being used, I hesitate to agree that one must have X degree of familiarity with the academic discourse on the topic.

[Straha]

If it's that writers in fields like Critical Race Theory pick terms deliberately with the hope of instigating people, the answer is not really. Terms of Art in specialized discourse go back to the beginning of language, we know that the Egyptians used them in both political and theological senses (hell, even the term Pharaoh is a synechdoche.) Authors pick them because there are common occurrences that recur that it makes sense to have a somewhat specialized language for, so that basics don't have to be re-explained and prose can be condensed, and because authors tend to want them to circulate they are often easy to understand on their face, and directly descriptive. Soft Power, used in the realm of International Relations scholars to represent non-military influence (as opposed to direct force, which is called Hard Power) is perhaps the most easy to get immediately. Settler Move to Innocence, the description of how settlers will often recognize that they are part of a broader systemic horror but try to immediately find ways to excuse themselves of that horror, is much the same. Once you get the concept the phrase makes sense, and having a phrase to use to discuss it makes writing a lot easier. (see also: Commodity Fetishism, Supply/Demand, Natal Alienation, etc. The list is practically endless.)

Alright, fair enough. It's quite possible that I'm wrong, and that the number of academics and other professional writers in fields like Critical Race Theory who choose these terms in other than good faith is utterly insignificant.

How much Critical Race Theory have you read directly? I find that most of the people who develop that opinion are usually only exposed to CRT via third-parties who are often unwilling to treat the concepts and ideas brought up fairly.

Would you say there's largely the same degree of consensus as to the meaning of these terms as there is for any other one would look up?

More or less. Obviously, debate happens at the margins over new terms and how existing terms may apply (for instance, there's a very active debate about whether or not Asian folk in the United States are settlers), but that's to be expected in any field and nothing in a thread like this is going to approach those issues in the depth to make those nuances matter.

I see your point here, but I'm not entirely sure I follow your conclusion all the way. While it certainly makes for a more productive exchange if all parties have at least a clear understanding of the terms being used, I hesitate to agree that one must have X degree of familiarity with the academic discourse on the topic.

I don't think you need familiarity with the entirety of the academic discourse. I do think you need to have engaged the field in something more than a cursory way. (Say, for instance, reading at least two books on the subject?) I also think you need to be willing to engage the academic terms being used in an honest and self-reflective manner, and not accuse people who use those terms of 'vomiting' them up. I think that's a really really low bar to pass.

[The Romulan Republic]

As far as I can see, you are the one arguing here that the American populace is fundamentally racist. Arguing that the power of the Federal government is necessary to keep them in check is merely a logical extension of that view (as the First Nations Peoples simply do not have the numbers or the firepower to do so alone). Presuming anyone actually said anything like that, which given your history of misrepresenting posts and putting words in peoples' mouths to portray them as racist, seems questionable at best.

You don't seem to see very well. I would suggest that any interpretation of Straha's words which suggests he's saying Americans are racist all in one lump, black and Native just as racist as white, requires some serious ideological blinders in place.

Even then, if we accept that by "Americans" you refer to settler Americans or white Americans primarily or exclusively and then adopt that usage, I don't see how a statement of decolonization such as Straha has made, which posits a possibility for decolonization and at least peaceful coexistence afterwards, assumes fundamental racism. If it did, the only options for decolonization would be removal or a police state. Is anyone proposing that in this thread, or anything like that? Have people not, in fact, specifically disavowed removal on multiple occasions? I don't understand your statement here.

Well, for a start, he did just argue that Trump is not particularly different from the "American norm". That is certainly heavily implying, at the least, that Americans in general are an extremely racist people. That is what I was responding to when I said that Straha was the one depicting Americans as fundamentally racist people.

Straha, along with others in this thread, has posited a number of possible routes to decolonization. Some I consider non-viable. However, the notion of fundamentally remaking the American political and legal system (which can be done legally through the process of a constitutional convention) is one I not only accept, but support, even if I recognize that for pragmatic reasons the moment has not quite come yet (the Alt. Reich has too much power now- if we're going to renegotiate the fundamentals of the Constitution, I'd prefer to do it from a position of greater strength).

It would be fairly explicable in terms of the notion of "white fragility", but I can hear the steam building up as I merely type that.

If its simply another attempt to characterize me and my views as pro-racism, then yes I would take offense, because I would regard that as obvious ad hominem and libel.

Please explain what views I have expressed that can be described by the term "white fragility". This isn't a trick, I honestly want to know. Because I am more than willing to consider the possibility that my position has been influenced by latent or unintentional racial bias (I don't think there's one human being older than infancy who is completely innocent of such bias), but words have been put in my mouth here, and views have been attributed to me which I objectively do not hold, and I can neither defend myself nor admit guilt if I do not know what, specifically, I am being accused of.

If it is that I regard any process of decolonization as infeasible and/or racist, as you suggested above, you would be right to condemn that, but that is not an accurate interpretation of my view, as I noted above.

[Effie]

As far as I can see, you are the one arguing here that the American populace is fundamentally racist. Arguing that the power of the Federal government is necessary to keep them in check is merely a logical extension of that view (as the First Nations Peoples simply do not have the numbers or the firepower to do so alone). Presuming anyone actually said anything like that, which given your history of misrepresenting posts and putting words in peoples' mouths to portray them as racist, seems questionable at best.

You don't seem to see very well. I would suggest that any interpretation of Straha's words which suggests he's saying Americans are racist all in one lump, black and Native just as racist as white, requires some serious ideological blinders in place.

Even then, if we accept that by "Americans" you refer to settler Americans or white Americans primarily or exclusively and then adopt that usage, I don't see how a statement of decolonization such as Straha has made, which posits a possibility for decolonization and at least peaceful coexistence afterwards, assumes fundamental racism. If it did, the only options for decolonization would be removal or a police state. Is anyone proposing that in this thread, or anything like that? Have people not, in fact, specifically disavowed removal on multiple occasions? I don't understand your statement here.

Well, for a start, he did just argue that Trump is not particularly different from the "American norm". That is certainly heavily implying, at the least, that Americans in general are an extremely racist people. That is what I was responding to when I said that Straha was the one depicting Americans as fundamentally racist people.

Straha, along with others in this thread, has posited a number of possible routes to decolonization. Some I consider non-viable. However, the notion of fundamentally remaking the American political and legal system (which can be done legally through the process of a constitutional convention) is one I not only accept, but support, even if I recognize that for pragmatic reasons the moment has not quite come yet (the Alt. Reich has too much power now- if we're going to renegotiate the fundamentals of the Constitution, I'd prefer to do it from a position of greater strength).

It would be fairly explicable in terms of the notion of "white fragility", but I can hear the steam building up as I merely type that.

If its simply another attempt to characterize me and my views as pro-racism, then yes I would take offense, because I would regard that as obvious ad hominem and libel.

Please explain what views I have expressed that can be described by the term "white fragility". This isn't a trick, I honestly want to know. Because I am more than willing to consider the possibility that my position has been influenced by latent or unintentional racial bias (I don't think there's one human being older than infancy who is completely innocent of such bias), but words have been put in my mouth here, and views have been attributed to me which I objectively do not hold, and I can neither defend myself nor admit guilt if I do not know what, specifically, I am being accused of.

If it is that I regard any process of decolonization as infeasible and/or racist, as you suggested above, you would be right to condemn that, but that is not an accurate interpretation of my view, as I noted above.

"White fragility" has less to do with your views and more to do with the way that you have characterized the views of others, taking "Americans are very racist" (which is absolutely true) and treating it as "Americans are utterly racist and irredeemable and so are you". Which is practically a textbook example- you have exaggerated comments from an antiracist perspective such that they become a vicious attack on you personally.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

I'm at a loss as to what Straha is trying to accomplish. If Trump is not an aberration, does that mean we shouldn't step up defense against institutionalized racism? We should just react as if Obama were still in the White House? If perfect is the enemy of good, and America will never be perfect, we should stop trying to make it good?

It feels like Staha has stepped into a moment when more Americans than ever might have been willing to learn what he has to say, and just chastised us all for not having always felt the rage. Instead of putting us to purpose he is antagonizing the closest thing he has to allies (yes, closest, despite the bottomless contempt he no doubt feels for everyone not as enlightened as himself).

[Effie]

I'm at a loss as to what Straha is trying to accomplish. If Trump is not an aberration, does that mean we shouldn't step up defense against institutionalized racism? We should just react as if Obama were still in the White House? If perfect is the enemy of good, and America will never be perfect, we should stop trying to make it good?

It feels like Staha has stepped into a moment when more Americans than ever might have been willing to learn what he has to say, and just chastised us all for not having always felt the rage. Instead of putting us to purpose he is antagonizing the closest thing he has to allies (yes, closest, despite the bottomless contempt he no doubt feels for everyone not as enlightened as himself).

So did you write this post to be as cliched as possible?

[Rogue 9]

I'm at a loss as to what Straha is trying to accomplish. If Trump is not an aberration, does that mean we shouldn't step up defense against institutionalized racism? We should just react as if Obama were still in the White House? If perfect is the enemy of good, and America will never be perfect, we should stop trying to make it good?

It feels like Staha has stepped into a moment when more Americans than ever might have been willing to learn what he has to say, and just chastised us all for not having always felt the rage. Instead of putting us to purpose he is antagonizing the closest thing he has to allies (yes, closest, despite the bottomless contempt he no doubt feels for everyone not as enlightened as himself).

So did you write this post to be as cliched as possible?

He's not wrong, though. If you walk around browbeating people, you should not be surprised if they don't particularly care to listen to what you have to say.

[Gandalf]

I'm at a loss as to what Straha is trying to accomplish. If Trump is not an aberration, does that mean we shouldn't step up defense against institutionalized racism? We should just react as if Obama were still in the White House? If perfect is the enemy of good, and America will never be perfect, we should stop trying to make it good?

It feels like Staha has stepped into a moment when more Americans than ever might have been willing to learn what he has to say, and just chastised us all for not having always felt the rage. Instead of putting us to purpose he is antagonizing the closest thing he has to allies (yes, closest, despite the bottomless contempt he no doubt feels for everyone not as enlightened as himself).

Why does he need to put you to purpose? Surely the knowledge of the inherent horrors of the US are sufficient?

[Effie]

I'm at a loss as to what Straha is trying to accomplish. If Trump is not an aberration, does that mean we shouldn't step up defense against institutionalized racism? We should just react as if Obama were still in the White House? If perfect is the enemy of good, and America will never be perfect, we should stop trying to make it good?

It feels like Staha has stepped into a moment when more Americans than ever might have been willing to learn what he has to say, and just chastised us all for not having always felt the rage. Instead of putting us to purpose he is antagonizing the closest thing he has to allies (yes, closest, despite the bottomless contempt he no doubt feels for everyone not as enlightened as himself).

So did you write this post to be as cliched as possible?

He's not wrong, though. If you walk around browbeating people, you should not be surprised if they don't particularly care to listen to what you have to say.

I would say that he is probably wrong about Straha feeling "bottomless contempt" for "everyone not as enlightened as himself". I would say that he is definitely wrong about the subject matter of this conversation by framing it as if this was about perfection. I would say that he is extremely wrong to suggest that an America which is not institutionally racist can be analogized as the perfect which is the enemy of the good. I would say that his chiding is frankly entirely wrong in that he cannot speak for anyone but himself but he claims to speak with the vox populi. I would say that phrasing things as "the closest thing he has to allies" is fundamentally wrong, in that various sorts of radicals have each other, and have liberal LGBT people and cishet people of color, who are frankly much closer allies than white guys online.

Finally, I would say that Bob is also trying to browbeat Straha, so he should, by your lights, not be surprised if Straha or anyone else ignores him.

[The Romulan Republic]

You don't seem to see very well. I would suggest that any interpretation of Straha's words which suggests he's saying Americans are racist all in one lump, black and Native just as racist as white, requires some serious ideological blinders in place.

Even then, if we accept that by "Americans" you refer to settler Americans or white Americans primarily or exclusively and then adopt that usage, I don't see how a statement of decolonization such as Straha has made, which posits a possibility for decolonization and at least peaceful coexistence afterwards, assumes fundamental racism. If it did, the only options for decolonization would be removal or a police state. Is anyone proposing that in this thread, or anything like that? Have people not, in fact, specifically disavowed removal on multiple occasions? I don't understand your statement here.

Well, for a start, he did just argue that Trump is not particularly different from the "American norm". That is certainly heavily implying, at the least, that Americans in general are an extremely racist people. That is what I was responding to when I said that Straha was the one depicting Americans as fundamentally racist people.

Straha, along with others in this thread, has posited a number of possible routes to decolonization. Some I consider non-viable. However, the notion of fundamentally remaking the American political and legal system (which can be done legally through the process of a constitutional convention) is one I not only accept, but support, even if I recognize that for pragmatic reasons the moment has not quite come yet (the Alt. Reich has too much power now- if we're going to renegotiate the fundamentals of the Constitution, I'd prefer to do it from a position of greater strength).

It would be fairly explicable in terms of the notion of "white fragility", but I can hear the steam building up as I merely type that.

If its simply another attempt to characterize me and my views as pro-racism, then yes I would take offense, because I would regard that as obvious ad hominem and libel.

Please explain what views I have expressed that can be described by the term "white fragility". This isn't a trick, I honestly want to know. Because I am more than willing to consider the possibility that my position has been influenced by latent or unintentional racial bias (I don't think there's one human being older than infancy who is completely innocent of such bias), but words have been put in my mouth here, and views have been attributed to me which I objectively do not hold, and I can neither defend myself nor admit guilt if I do not know what, specifically, I am being accused of.

If it is that I regard any process of decolonization as infeasible and/or racist, as you suggested above, you would be right to condemn that, but that is not an accurate interpretation of my view, as I noted above.

"White fragility" has less to do with your views and more to do with the way that you have characterized the views of others, taking "Americans are very racist" (which is absolutely true) and treating it as "Americans are utterly racist and irredeemable and so are you". Which is practically a textbook example- you have exaggerated comments from an antiracist perspective such that they become a vicious attack on you personally.

Who said anything about an attack on me personally? Its not personal, except insofar as I am American and calling Americans racist is a collective attack on all Americans.

Straha saying that I personally do not object to racism as long as the quiet part is kept quiet is an attack on me personally, but his saying Americans are racist is not.

I do object on principle to broad generalizations like "Americans are racist". I mean, yeah, in the sense that all humans (or nearly all) are susceptible to such prejudices, and that white Americans at least have (often unknowingly and inadvertently) benefited from racist policies. But I don't think Americans collectively are universally more racist than any other group of people, and I feel that broad stereotypes are generally best avoided in all debate. But that's an objection on principle, not because I feel personally singled out by such a comment. I am well aware that the clumsy rhetoric of a forum poster poses very little threat to me personally, and that my personal feelings matter very little next to the issues that are being discussed.