It's true! I did. I grew up in Ohio during the '40s and '50s. The KKK was still a political force, and blacks lived in enclaves out in the hinterlands where I grew up. In twelve years of school, I never shared a classroom or even a school building with anyone more exotic than Tony, an olive-skinned boy of Italian descent, whose parents came from Mediterranean shores.
A couple of years ago, we were at a dinner with several couples, including the Luvly Laura's best friend. Some of the conversation turned to her friend's days in London, England, when her husband was assigned there by Ford. Laura said England was the one place she'd really like to visit.
Her friend's husband said that it had been really nice when they were there, but it wasn't worth going now. I asked why not.
"Well, when we were there, almost everybody was British, French or American. I went back a few years ago, and everywhere I went I saw as many black faces as I did white." He put a forkful of food in his mouth.
"And?" I asked. Just "And?"
He tried to answer around his food, but his wife cut him off after a half-dozen mangled words. Very huffy, and in a voice filled with sarcasm, she asked, "You don't have a prejudiced bone in your body, do you?"
"Not any more," I said. "Had an operation back in the early '60s. Had 'em all taken out."
Half the table laughed. She did something between a "humpf'" and a "snerk."
I went back to eating. The Luvly Laura was furious with me, and refused to believe that my question was not a deliberate shot to embarrass her friend and her husband. But it wasn't. It was an attempt to point out that the statement was absurd.
So far as I can tell, she was right. But I grew up prejudiced... (It's true, Elizabeth and Hannah... and it wasn't all G'Pa either) and patronizing toward black people. Not "ethnic" groups... just blacks. I couldn't get behind the idea that everybody who hadn't emigrated from the UK was somehow my inferior, but the Old Man never met an ethnic group (except for the British and the Dutch) that he didn't mistrust, and for which he didn't have a derogatory name. He would swear by the Bible he read daily, that it wasn't bigotry. That it was simply what was observable to anyone. He truly DID have people he thought of, and spoke of, as Wops, Spics, Polacks, Frogs... you name it... who he also thought of as his friends. He saw no irony in the dichotomy in his own mind.
Mother had a blind spot about Jews, based on her religious upbringing that taught that it was the Jews' fault that Jesus had died (God's plan that he die being, apparently, irrelevant). Later in her life, her best friend and greatest supporter and admirer was a Jewish lawyer from Cleveland. She told him one day of her previous views. "I know, Pat," he said, "I've always known. But people who learn to trust their better emotions are worth keeping around, no matter what they USED TO think,"
Like me, she had little discomfit about other ethnic groups. And she would not allow ethnic slurs to be used in her hearing. I said the word "niggers" once. I have, as of that moment, an absolute knowledge of what the phrase "Wash your mouth out with soap" truly means, Ivory soap tastes TERRIBLE!
But it was her view of 'darkies' (her West Virginia way of avoiding calling them 'niggers.') that was deeply, patronizingly racist when I was a small boy. Her view was that black people were somehow 'children.' During the early days of "urban renewal" she was appalled that some of the darkies in the squalid black neighborhood outside of town were given seats on the board that decided what the new federal money was to be spent for.
But Mother learned. She worked with those board members, and with black nurses' aides and technicians in the local hospital, and eventually a few black nurses (Ravenna, Ohio, WAS the sticks. Nurses were hard to come by, and they couldn't afford the luxury of forever turning down qualified nurses because they were black), and for a while she spoke with amazement about how intelligent and hard-working they were. And eventually, much to her Mother's and sisters' dismay, many if not most of her actual friends were black. But I had already been "casually, if not carefully, taught." It was not to last.
I had "every prejudiced bone in my body" excised one day in the early '60s. I sat that day in the back seat of a brand new Buick driven by a Baptist preacher who made the mistake of explaining to Hattie Larlham that she "just didn't understand" why he couldn't have a racially mixed congregation in his church.
When she ran down about an hour later, as we drew close to home (having begun by pointing out that she'd grown up in the southern style in West Virginia, and she damned well DID understand, in fact that she knew all there was to know about THAT argument), he had learned everything I had long known about saying stupid things to my mother.
When he dropped us off at home, he asked her to pray for his soul... and his job... because he was going to do some "cold calling" and invite some of the people from the black neighborhood to his church. Apparently her prayers worked, because he was still there five years later, and the congregation was fully integrated.
Me? I learned the final lesson that day that I'd been slowly learning for most of my young life... that color was about the least important characteristic a person carried, unless you were looking for someone and wanted to describe him/her.
I also learned, growing up with the Old Man, and with white Mid-westerners, how the language of bigotry changes, blends and hides as it becomes less and less acceptable as public speech. How the winks and nudges go, and how the REAL bigotry comes out when people assume everyone around them is 'down' with what they're saying. I've watched and listened since it became apparent that Barack Obama MIGHT have a chance against Hillary Clinton.
When I see pictures of the President, who has done no evil thing, has started no war, has enriched no already-wealthy cronies beyond most of our least believable dreams, as "The Joker" from batman, as an exaggerated '20s and '30s style black man, as a nearly nude African in lion-skin costume and feathered headdress, and his wife as a stompin' steatopygous caricature of "darktown" dancer... I know racism is afoot.
It's not satire, it's not about 'policies,' or politics... it's not 'just editorial cartooning,' nor is it, by ANY stretch, funny.
Calling the President the "Usurper in Chief," "Barry Soetero" (as if his name isn't his own), "Traitor in Chief" and others too numerous to mention, I know it's not about "Socialism," or "One World Government," or a desire to "take over American business," or even "one more step in his consolidation of power." Constantly yammering about his birth certificate, school records, driving test, and a thousand other nonsensical ephemera is meaningless noise, kept up only to attempt to de-legitimize this president. These attempts to make him non-legitimate as president are simply a way to make him somehow "less," so people feel more justified in belittling and denigrating him... and it's engendered by his color - NOT his politics.







































Comments: 80
If anyone does not know what I am on about just look at one of my latest articles.
Jeff sounds like you really had a rough life! I am sorry if you did but the statements you make keep the bigotry going.
Maybe people can change but for Chuck to be a white apologist does not end his bigoted nature. The intolerance is still there but now the hate and indifference is toward those who disagree with his politics. This post proves it by claiming those that think a certain way about government policies and engage in political hyperbole are thinly veiled racists. He thinks that castigating people for being white and having the audacity of opposing the policies of a black president is proving that he has changed. His bigotry even bled over to people like Hillary and Bill Clinton simply for running against a black president. He sees evil in all of those who don't think like him. THAT'S bigotry. You and Chuck both are doing plenty to keep bigotry alive but your self righteousness blinds you from your own hypocrisy.
I did not vote for President Obama. I disagree with his politics, as you know. It has nothing whatsoever to do with his skin color. While I'm sure some people did not vote for him because of his race, many others, like me, had grave doubts about his qualifications and priorities. It is truly not about race.
From the Wiki;
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
My upbringing was different. My entire family is integrated. Whites, blacks, Negro (yes we allow that word), Indian (from India), Hispanic, Jews. A family gathering resembles a UN General Assembly.
We have a local version of it here in Jamaica, but it's a completely different species of animal to what exists in the US. Here it rarely goes beyond disdain.
I was introduced to the US version in 1972 on my very first visit to Florida. (I'll post on it at another time) The whites treated me as if I was not human!!! The rage that generates is indescribable!!! We forced every cashier to take the money from our hands by holding up the checkout line in stores and the lines at the Box Offices at cinemas.
You should have seen the reaction we generated when 12 of us went to a country and western music store!!! Jamaicans adore American Country and Western. All the other shoppers immediately left and nobody else came in until we all left.
In 2003, I went to a Bose store with my nephew. They were demonstrating a system, so we sat to listen. Everybody else stood on their feet for the entire demonstration!!! Nobody wanted so sit with us. This time though I laughed so hard, it took a while for me to be able to get up.
As for bigotry, I think it's something most people have to grow out of even though I don't believe it's a naturally occurring thing. The idea that someone's ethnicity or sex causes a natural inferiority or superiority sounds to me like something that would originate as an excuse for bad behavior on the part of members of the ethnicity claiming to be superior. From there, generations of people must have gone through the same learning process you and Grandma did, some getting it, others not. Grandma's misconceptions about black people come straight from the arguments made in support of slavery, and I'll bet that's pretty much all she heard about them growing up. Her main influence on me in that area was a simple admonition that hatred, anger, judgment, and grudges are all heavy burdens to carry, and one should not unnecessarily load one's self up with those. My Dad's message was simpler; don't make up stupid reasons to exclude people from your life. You'll end up missing out, and being mean.
If I had any thoughts in that direction, they would have been erased the day two strangers stood up in my defense when an angry man accosted me at a department store/grocery under the assumption that I was a Muslim. As I stood there listening to him tell me how "your people" were responsible for more violence than any other race (which was confusing as hell, because he looked European to me, and the majority of my ethnic background is European) and calling me names I'd never heard used (and some I've never heard since) I felt people coming up behind me. I got ready to whack someone in the head with my purse, but then the guy just started backing off, really slowly. To my left and right, two young men, both taller and more broad than me (or my assailant) stepped forward, arms crossed, stern looks on their faces. My impromptu body guards were complete strangers to me, both completely unrelated to the situation aside from having probably been targets of someone's stupid racist behavior at some point. I knew exactly what they were laying on the line by coming to my defense, too. In Lima, Ohio, all the guy had to do was claim he'd been attacked by a couple of black gang members at the store. There would be arrests, and my testimony wouldn't matter to the judge. Fortunately, he didn't seem to figure that out.
I disagree with the idea that the only reason people may doubt Obama's honesty, disagree with his political actions, or suspect his citizenship is because he is black. I agree that there are those for whom that is the reason, but the conservative viewpoint existed before he came along, so it's really tough to blame that on race. The citizenship thing, I blame more on the whole conspiracy theory crowd, which seems to see an x-files type shadow-government run super-secret elite club behind all things presidential. No one has ever even attempted to claim that the whole "Bush was behind the 911" attack conspiracy theory was based on the color of his skin. Racists have latched onto that movement, but I doubt anyone backward enough to hate by color in the 21st century would be able to think up anything as complex as a conspiracy theory all by him/herself.
As for me, I'm going to continue as I am with the Obama administration and all other politicians; I call it as I see it. I'm extremely disappointed with the end product of the health care initiative, as I was hoping for actual reform, and not what eventually ended up passed, but I am thrilled to see the administration moving forward on wind power. It's about time someone did! In any case, he is neither the devil nor a god; he's just the guy who is currently in the executive position of our three-branch federal government right now. He'll do some things I like, and some things I don't, and I'll shout or crow about which is which, as is my tendency. I will continue to be called a bigot every time I disagree with someone's liberal political viewpoint, and a heathen every time I disagree with someone's conservative political viewpoint... and I will continue to show those comments to friends and family, and we will continue to laugh at them.
^_^
And you're wrong on the Obama citizenship thing... it's ENTIRELY about race... ENTIRELY! It was from the start. If the original suit had been brought by a reputable advocate I would give a nod to an honest attempt to establish citizenship, but even under those circumstances this continued hammering at a dead issue is strictly driven by the color of President Obama's skin.
I agree with you on the health reform, and the only reason I continued to support it at the end was that if we didn't get an actual statute on the books this year... it was at least a generation away for another try. I remain hopeful that the election will go badly for the TEA-partiers, and that we will begin the process of improving that legislation yet this Presidential term.
Still trying to get an image in my head that identifies you as a Muslim, dear. And I'd love to thank those guys for standing up for you. But the remarkable (in a negative sense) thing to me is that their color vs. yours is the most remarkable thing in the story. And I don't mean you shouldn't have been surprised by it. It would be remarkable to anyone in any major city in the USA.
It is odd that people keep saying that conservatism was about segregation, when it was the Southern Dems who voted against civil rights legislation until Kennedy.
The question of Obama's citizenship arose because it was unproved. It was answered, and most folks have moved on. I've heard more about that question from the left than from the right. As for those still questioning, the loudest of those voices have come from folks I've seen at the vocal forefront of every conspiracy theory that has come down the pike lately. It's tough for me to attribute all of their entire attitude of acceptance of conspiracy theories, not all of which are related to Obama, to his personal ethnicity. Now, the lawsuit is a different story... it is my understanding that the originator of that suit has a habit of filing suits like it. Perhaps we have a vexatious litigator, there.
The big difference I have with you on the health legislation is that I don't believe any of the problems contained in the bill will ever be fixed, or that they are accidental. They had a whole year to get it right. They had a filibuster-proof majority and a same-party president. They did not need a single Republican or Independent vote to pass their bill. There is no way that they passed anything that wasn't exactly the way they wanted it to be. Legislators who take a whole year to write and pass a bill do not pass a bunch of mistakes; they pass a carefully designed piece of legislation. A bunch of mistakes is what gets passed in the first 100 days. Also, because of my experience with the welfare system and the effects of welfare "reform," I do not believe in the idea of "pass it now, fix it later." They never fix it later. Wen the same party is in, they leave it alone. When the opposing party is in, they shoot holes in it in an attempt to make it look more like what they would have done. They pass changes, but it doesn't get better. In fact, it's likely that it'll get worse. My personal jury is out on the Tea party; I am getting too much conflicting information on them. To complicate the decision, everything I've heard against them has been accompanied by a general negative attitude toward certain political leanings, which indicates bias and the tendency to view the group through a belief-tinted lens, whereas everything I've heard in their favor has been accompanied by a general positive attitude toward those same certain political leanings, which also which indicates bias and the tendency to view the group through a belief-tinted lens. Having learned that there are websites advocating the infiltration of the group by their opposition for the purpose of behaving badly at rallies to make them look bad, I don't even trust video any more. I think only time will tell on that one.
The Muslim incident happened after my workday in a small retail establishment. I was dressed in a short-sleeved blouse, a long flowing skirt, and sandals. It was hot out, so I had put on a white do-rag to keep the sun from cooking the top of my head. The guy apparently was so ignorant that he mistook my plain little white kerchief for a hijab.
I was not really surprised that two black men came to my defense, but because they were strangers to me, I was touched by their courage and compassion. That incident could have ended very badly for all of us, yet they were willing to take the risk to stand up for me.
However... "The fact that I disagree with you on the subject does not make me wrong. ." No-o-o-o... but the fact that you're wrong does. Heh-heh-heh...
As for health care... we'll see what we see. It's in place, the Republicans aren't gonna be able to repeal it, and the SCOTUS isn't gonna declare it unconstitutional, so-o-o-o-o... mebbe we can do what we need to. We'll see.
And you're a lovely young lady, Scotch/English for the most part, with a smidgin of Norman French, I'm guessin'. AND you have freckles. Not a lot of freckled Muslim women running around, I think. I get how I was mistaken for a Mexican in San Antonio, but I'll be damned if I see you as Muslim, Mennonite OR Latina. How strange.
The neo-nazi (who had a swastika tattooed on the back of his neck) saw my brown eyes and dark brown hair, heard me "cater" to the needs of a customer who cannot have pork products (my store serves mostly food with pork, and a lot of it is in contact with other food containing pork, so that was really a challenge, but I did find something yummy that we could serve him, and he was happy), and assumed I was Jewish (by the slurs he used).
The guy who assumed I was Muslim saw, again, saw dark brown hair, brown eyes, feminine clothing, and a head covering, and translated that into Muslim. It probably didn't help that the incident occurred in September of 2002 during the anniversary re-cap media blitz.
The guy who thought I was Mennonite knew just enough to associate a plain blue skirt and a bun with the faith... had no clue about the modesty aspect. I am guessing he's never met an actual Mennonite woman in his life.
I've got non-white neighbors and friends who have freckles... they actually are present in a lot of ethnicities, though I understand it to be the Irish who made them famous.
The Latina incident was probably my fault... I was wearing the wrong thing in the wrong place at the wrong time, and while shopping with a classmate, and we were also practicing homework for Spanish class. We were learning the lyrics to La Bamba.
It seems that I had picked up my instructor's Brazilian accent in class, and it was quite apparent when I was going over the words. I don't think I was transferring it to my English speech, but my classmate said later that I was, a little. I was also doing better in class than she was (which is funny, because 15 years later, I unfortunately don't remember much of it,) and kept correcting her. We almost got our butts kicked. Apparently, there are gangs in Findlay, OH that in 1993 had a LOT of people cheesed off, including either some other gangs, or some wanabes who were pretty good at flashing signs. Either way, we decided to avoid the mall after that.
He was older than me, he should have known better. But, that was what he learned from adults...
Not from my parents, mind you. But, from when he left to be with his father in Florida.
Not that I think that our dad is racist. But, he learned it there. Around school kids who were rude, obnoxious, jerks to tell the truth.
He's grown up a lot since then. So, have I.
We've both totally understand how we were part of the problem back then.
Neither one of us can stand that racism now.
It took many years of emotional abuse by others, to understand how wrong it is to hate based on outward appearances.
However, the other day when I went looking for pics of Michelle Obama and Sarah Palin I was HORRIBLY disturbed to find that the FIRST pic of Mrs. Obama to come up was a photoshopped pic with her face as a monkey.
That said, the idea
that it's ok to do this to some politicians
and not others
or that this is something that only conservatives do
to liberals, or that whether or not it's ok to do this
depends solely on skin color...
and political outlook
...is ridiculous.
It seems to me that you are finding fault with Liberals who purportedly have done this ... allowing you to justify, I suppose, what has been done to the present administration ... what goes around comes around and all of that is true ... but maybe it is time to break the cycle.
I am saying that it is hypocritical and two-faced for liberals to create, distribute, and laugh at these (and the literally hundreds of others that came up in my search), but then cry racism when the exact same joke is made about their candidate with a fraction of the frequency that was done to the right. There is no justification, only truth. You don't get to fling mud and then complain about having dirt on your hands.
.("I am saying that it is hypocritical and two-faced for liberals to create, distribute, and laugh at these (and the literally hundreds of others that came up in my search), but then cry racism when the exact same joke is made about their candidate with a fraction of the frequency that was done to the right.")
You are right and pointing out hypocritical actions is justified...but the justification ends when the assumption is made that either group...liberals or conservatives..is responsible for the posting of the kind of trash you have referenced (re-posted pictures of Bush). There are INDIVIDUALS within both groups that that post these kinds of things. The generalization is too broad and sweeping if all inclusive terms like "liberals" or "conservatives" are used.
There aren't two "sides" hannah...there are hundreds...thousands...millions of "sides" because no two individuals fit the exact same description. Jerry's point was valid because the actions of SOME conservatives reflects back on the broad category of political conservatism...and the actions of SOME liberals does the same with regards to the broad category of political liberalism.
I can't give the exact quote, but Eric Hoffer said..."The group is often judged by the actions of the least representative members of that group."
In other words...the few bad actions represent a greater portion of the character of the group than those bad actions really should represent. And what this accomplishes is a further division of people and ideas when the differences may not have actually been so great.
It is irrelevant whether it is a small portion of the group or the whole (and by the way, I found thousands of these... quite a huge variety for being from a small portion of the group). The point is, there is no high ground here. Again, insinuating some kind of moral superiority on the basis of having found an image ridiculing the current head of state is hypocritical at best, given the history involved.
Try looking back at posts and comments, and you will see that this is not out of context at all.
"It is irrelevant whether it is a small portion of the group or the whole..."
Yes...it is relevant. If you are a member of a certain group...and another member of your group expresses his opinion about a specific topic...which differs from yours...would it be fair to say that because you both belong to the same group or organization...that he has accurately represented YOUR opinion (about that specific topic)?
"The point is, there is no high ground here."
Yes...there is no high ground. But the disgraceful acts of one cannot be defended by pointing to the disgraceful acts of another.
It is MY opinion that a more independent individual mindset would be more beneficial than (figuratively) flocking together into group think mentality. If the "us and them" is replaced with "we"...the probability of finding solutions that compromise rather than threaten seems more likely.
I've seen this too many times to buy that argument, and I don't believe you do, either. Your statement appears to be more of an attempt to obfuscate than to understand.
In the case of this specific topic, that being the pointing out of the existence of the image in question, it is irrelevant whether it is a small portion or the whole which is creating these images. The act of pointing out one exclusive of the other is done for the purpose of generalizing; the image is indicated as evidence of racism on the part of all conservatives and/or republicans. The point of the reply was and is to highlight the fact that such insinuation is baseless.
But the disgraceful acts of one cannot be defended by pointing to the disgraceful acts of another.
Either you are being deliberately obtuse, or you missed something there. As previously stated, my point was to demonstrate the invalidity of the outrage, not justify the act. An act need not be justified in order for outrage to be invalid. It is simply that such parody is par for the course in politics. The fact is, the images are of no value, but they are also no big deal.
If the "us and them" is replaced with "we"...the probability of finding solutions that compromise rather than threaten seems more likely.
It seems to me that each side only says that while in power. As soon as pendulum swings back to the other side, the underdogs go right back to the "us and them" mentality. Such statements strike me as disingenuous and sophomoric. In light of past experience with the idea, I have to ask you the same question I've asked every person who makes that suggestion, and I'll warn you ahead of time that I've never received a satisfactory answer to it: Why now? Why couldn't you agree to replace "us and them" with "we" when "they" were in power?
First point...."In the case of this specific topic, that being the pointing out of the existence of the image in question, it is irrelevant whether it is a small portion or the whole which is creating these images."
Okay...so all of the liberals and all of the conservatives are equally bigoted? Each group has published pictures that represent a president in a derogatory manner.
But then you say that "The act of pointing out one exclusive of the other is done for the purpose of generalizing; the image is indicated as evidence of racism on the part of all conservatives and/or republicans. The point of the reply was and is to highlight the fact that such insinuation is baseless. "...meaning that the act of representing Obama in a derogatory manner ISN'T a representation of ALL Republicans/conservatives...so it IS relevant whether it is a small portion or the whole which is creating these images.
"The fact is, the images are of no value, but they are also no big deal."
Yes..they are a big deal. They represent racism and racism is a "big deal".
"It seems to me that each side only says that while in power. As soon as pendulum swings back to the other side, the underdogs go right back to the "us and them" mentality. "
That's my point.
"Why now? Why couldn't you agree to replace "us and them" with "we" when "they" were in power? "
You haven't the foggiest idea what my political stance is. But...if you are asking why "they" (Republicans??? I'm assuming...specifically Bush) lacked the approval of the majority of the country (28%ish approval rating in mid 2008)....not only of Democrats..but of about 40% of Republicans....it's because he didn't do a good job. Look where we were before he took office....look at where we were when he left office.
But I agree with you that the "we" is never really a part of the vocabulary of both parties at the same time. Again....this is my point.
Now you are attempting to apply to a comment a meaning which is not there, based on the isolation of a single sentence. The sentence must be isolated in order to do this, because if you take it in the context in which it is used, it no longer has that meaning. Again, your attempt to obfuscate fails, as you continue on to the rest of the paragraph in order to support the tangent you're taking. You seek to address what is not there rather than to address what is, because it is easier to accuse than to admit.
"Yes..they are a big deal. They represent racism and racism is a "big deal"."
And here, you prove my point in one single statement.
"That's my point."
For being your point, it certainly was not present in your comment.
"You haven't the foggiest idea what my political stance is. "
And you haven't the foggiest what mine is, either. I am not debating your political stance. I am debating your comments.
"But...if you are asking why "they" (Republicans??? I'm assuming...specifically Bush) lacked the approval of the majority of the country..."
Well, that certainly convinces me that you're not a democrat or liberal. It sounds totally centrist.
Enjoy your words; they are not mine. As Bush is no longer president, I see no point in debating his performance with you in this particular thread. I've gotta hand it to you though; spectacular fail on the answer. Instead of giving any level of real answer, you your broad statement simply increases the indication that you lean to the left.
"Again....this is my point."
Again, totally absent in your earlier comments and not really indicated in your later one, either.
I learned that when I spent time as a soldier in Korea in the early '60s. I was never comfortable with the way our troops called Koreans "gooks." And they carried it to Viet Nam, without ever learning the etiology of the term.
In Korean, Me-kook means foreigner. Han-kook means "Korean." American troops heard the Koreans pointing and calling them "foreigner" ("Look, Mommy... a foreigner "me-KOOK*!). They only heard the emphasized second syllable, which they took to be an insult. So they started calling Koreans "gooks" in retaliation, and it stuck and became a general pejorative for "Asian."
Ooriental
Gentleman
Usually used when speaking of indian/pakistani people. (sorry Kushal)
I haven't ever been comfy using racial epithets (though some woman on here was all up in arms about the use of the word 'Polak'. I tried to show her being called 'Limey" was about the same and it wasn't necessarily a racial slur, only derogatory when qualified) anyway. Yes, when the world was not as culturally blended as it is getting now, people thought it amusing to call a spade and spade.
Yet via the media we always heard of plenty elsewhere, even, maybe especially, all things considered then, in downtown Portland, the closest major city ...
Thus up until I joined the USN after graduation from HS and one quarter of college, I had no strong opinions about such things one way or another ...
Later I was stationed aboard an aircraft carrier and being a petty officer in charge of the after emergency diesel generator room I was allowed to bunk there along with another fellow, so as to be closer to the machinery should it be called into service.
Some of my lower ranked people were black and worked in that compartment on occasion during the day, usually just cleaning and polishing the equipment. But they felt it enough "their territory" to make it a gathering place quite often for other black shipmate friends from far different departments ... quite often playing loud music.
I and the other guy though would come down and wanting to get some rest, put a stop to it and basically run them all off ... usually they understood, took it well and left ... as they should.
One time one of them was actually laying on my bunk and refused to get up ... when I physically dragged him off of it he became very upset ... but then left with the others. I turned the lights out and went to sleep, only to be awakened a while later with him standing over me with a switchblade knife at my throat ... I was groggy with sleep and tightly wound up in my wool blanket, so was basically helpless ...
Fortunately while I was sleeping the other guy had also come down and went to sleep in his bunk above me ... my potential assailant did not know that either until the guy woke up and warned him to get the hell out of there ... two against one he left.
Of course I couldn't let such a thing slide by, so had to follow up, and did, but still trying to not blow it all up out of proportion ... there was much tension for some time between the two of us, but it eventually got worked out and we had many long discussions about race etc after that ... I suppose I learned a lot eventually ... and eventually I met and worked with many other negroes never having any problems.
Being a fair minded more Liberal kind of guy I have never considered myself either a bigot nor a racist ... yet to this day I sometimes side with the white guys while watching man on man sporting events on TV seeking a preferential winner to "root for" when all other things are equal ... I suppose my some politically correct standards that make me a racist and bigot both though.
Just some reminiscing ... FWIW.
I had never been religious, never knew any Jewish folks, but had lived close to and liked very much a Polish family when growing up ... I only occasionally repeated jokes ... but this was a drinking party and a bunch of us guys ( I was much younger than most of them) were standing in the hallway outside of a bathroom telling jokes ... when it seemed my turn to tell one the only one I knew was the one the bathroom reminded me of ... but not wanting to offend any Polish folks I changed the butt of the joke from the way I had heard it and asked; " how best to kill a Jew when they are getting a drink of water (?) ... slam the toilet lid on their head " ... needless to say it was received with stark silence as everyone walked away from me ... naturally I found out the next day from my wife that many of them were Jewish ... live and learn.
Please keep posting to our group and ask others to join.