What I want you to do is acknowledge that your assumption has no basis. What I "expect".... not so much.
If the "bigotry is clear"... if there is a "racist statement" ------------ how come none of us can find it? Why can't it be quoted?
Because there isn't one, that's why. You assume it. Out of a score of possible bases of reasoning, you assume the most malevolent. Then you call it "clear".
The question now is --- why do you do that?
Btw the author never mentions a "racist statement". At all.
I think you need to speak for yourself, because clearly I'm not alone in this.
When she said it would be worse if he had been white...chuckle...chuckle...that was racism.
No, It. Is. Not. And we already did this -- racism requires a value judgment as a
basis. You ain't got one.
You're just trying to put up a smoke-screen. Frankly, I've lost respect in you because of this dishonesty. Talk all you want. Anyone that understands English can see racism in her statement. It's as plain as it can be. The author implied that it was there, but in literal terms he or she danced around it and then moved on.
I don't give a flying shit about "respect". What I care about is honest statement of fact. That's the only reason I keep pointing out where you fail to do so.
The judgement I base it on is her statement of having misgivings of a half white black man combined with her statement that it could have been worse if he was white. Explain how it could have been so bad if he had been white. Is Michelle's mother saying that her race is better, the same, or worse than the white race? Obviously better, which is the very definition of racism. She didn't like her daughter dating a bi-racial man but especially would have objected had he been, and I quote, "completely white". That is the basis of judgment.
That just confirms
my point. Had Michelle been marrying an all-white man, it would be
obvious to every passerby. Hence "it's hard" -- to deal with societal prejudices. And those prejudices would have been looking at two
more obviously different races.
Don't you get that? You keep burying your head in the sand on this point desperately trying to see "racism" where none was expressed. Trying to see the worst in someone you don't know, when an alternative has already been suggested, and then plugging that in in spite of appearances.
What I want you to do is acknowledge that your assumption has no basis. What I "expect".... not so much.
If the "bigotry is clear"... if there is a "racist statement" ------------ how come none of us can find it? Why can't it be quoted?
Because there isn't one, that's why. You assume it. Out of a score of possible bases of reasoning, you assume the most malevolent. Then you call it "clear".
The question now is --- why do you do that?
Btw the author never mentions a "racist statement". At all.
I think you need to speak for yourself, because clearly I'm not alone in this.
When she said it would be worse if he had been white...chuckle...chuckle...that was racism.
No, It. Is. Not. And we already did this -- racism requires a value judgment as a
basis. You ain't got one.
You're just trying to put up a smoke-screen. Frankly, I've lost respect in you because of this dishonesty. Talk all you want. Anyone that understands English can see racism in her statement. It's as plain as it can be. The author implied that it was there, but in literal terms he or she danced around it and then moved on.
I don't give a flying shit about "respect". What I care about is honest statement of fact. That's the only reason I keep pointing out where you fail to do so. What you're doing here is taking a statement of preference and attributing a basis to it that is simply not in evidence.
What basis we do have in fact contradicts you:
“I guess that I worry about races mixing because of the difficulty — not for, so much for prejudice or anything,” Robinson continued. “It’s just very hard.”
A mother concerned that people who see race in everything will make her life "very hard".
Imagine that. Maybe she's referring to you and BLT.
My marriage is bi-racial. Whites and blacks look down their noses constantly at mixed couples. I'v dealt with It for close to 40 years. It was bad in the 60s and 70s, but today there isn't any difficulties involved. Michelle's mother is just showing her prejudice. She even thinks it's a fucken joke. I see no concern in her statement. You just want to be a pure literalist and cut her some slack , but she's showing her bigotry and hypocrisy, especially since she herself isn't completely black. What a hypocrite.
Then I'm afraid it's you who has now pegged yourself as the hypocrite. You articulate perfectly what the issue is above from your own experience. Yet you can't allow that acknowledgement of sociocultural pressures to somebody else?
Why not? How come you can call that out, but Marian Robinson can't ?
Where do you get the idea she thinks it's a "fucken joke"? Let's have a link to
that one now in our endless parade of evidence.
And further about the time-travel thing, the concern being expressed would have been 25 years ago, not "
today there isn't any difficulties [sic]". You're still going out of your way to ascribe a motivation that doesn't exist, while simultaneously claiming to have an experience that affirms the one that
does.
That's what I call blinded by bias.
