Originally posted by: CU
How may years must pass before you can say "I'm sure it's just one of "x's" ancestors" referencing a gorilla and "x" being an African American till it is not racist. Do you have problem is "x" was a European or Asian. I don't see a problem with saying that if "x" is anyone Asian, African, Indian, European etc. if "x" believes in evolution. It is a true statement based on their on beliefs. Why do people assume someone is racist when the sentence could be taken in a non-racist way. He said it was in reference to her speech on evolution. Why take it in a bad way. Just to cause trouble or start something? People need to stop looking at things in the worst possible way an not take everything to heart.
I think you are well-intentioned - but not everyone is, and so we try to have some respect for people when there's been abuse of things like racism to the degree there has been.
If you don't, you get the racism cropping up again - suddenly people making the connection between Obama and fried chieck and watermelon (hey, so he likes fried chicken, so do I, what's the big deal?) that is the same as racism, with the same sneer and hate and a smug little 'got away with it' code word language instead of the direct "Obama is a sub-human N*****" type of language.
It's really not that hard. You can make all the legitimate, all the critical comments you want, just stear clear of ones that have the overtones of the racism abuses.
If you can't criticize Obama without the tiny sliver of things not to say over race, you need to learn. Even a (animal name here) like you can learn to.
How long, you ask? Until the racism has been stamped out enough that the reference mean nothing to anyone more than my slur against Byzantines as being like seagulls.