• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Is This A Racist Statement?

Mike

Well-known member
"I have given my life to try to alleviate the sufferings of Africa. There is something that all white men who have lived here like I must learn and know: that these individuals are a sub-race. They have neither the intellectual, mental, or emotional abilities to equate or to share equally with white men in any function of our civilization. I have given my life to try to bring them the advantages which our civilization must offer, but I have become well aware that we must retain this status: the superior and they the inferior. For whenever a white man seeks to live among them as their equals they will either destroy him or devour him. And they will destroy all of his work. Let white men from anywhere in the world, who would come to Africa, remember that you must continually retain this status; you the master and they the inferior like children that you would help or teach. Never fraternise with them as equals. Never accept them as your social equals or they will devour you. They will destroy you."

- Dr. Albert Schweitzer, winner of the 1952 Nobel Prize for peace, in his 1961 book, From My African Notebook.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Answer: This quote is utterly false and is an outrageously inaccurate picture of Dr. Schweitzer’s view of Africans. Dr. Schweitzer never said or wrote anything remotely like this. It does NOT appear in the book African Notebook.


--Lachlan Forrow, MD
President, The Albert Schweitzer Fellowship (USA)
Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School
 

Mike

Well-known member
How about this one from the "Great Emancipator"?

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the White and Black races--that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people, and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and Black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race. . . I give. . . the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last, stand by the law of the State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes."

- Abraham Lincoln (Fourth Debate with Stephen Douglas at Charleston, Illinois on September 18, 1858, Vol. III, p. 145-146 of The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln).
 

Mike

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
What was the purpose of planting a fake quote from Schweitzer?

Just a little test on my part. Just wanted to see if anyone took a statement by a respected man made years ago, would be any different if said (or read) today.

Times can change a statement. So can the respectability of who made a statement have a say so in how people perceive it.

Is Abe's statement racist to you?

I didn't find Schweitzer's statements racist at all given the times and what he had done for those people. When I found out it was not true, I re-nigged. :lol:
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Mike said:
How about this one from the "Great Emancipator"?

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the White and Black races--that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people, and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and Black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race. . . I give. . . the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last, stand by the law of the State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes."

- Abraham Lincoln (Fourth Debate with Stephen Douglas at Charleston, Illinois on September 18, 1858, Vol. III, p. 145-146 of The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln).

Ask the Dakota Sioux about who was President when they experienced ethnic cleansing. Abe.

When was it he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation? 3 or so years AFTER the Civil War started? hmmmmmm How come the American History books in HS don't note this? hmmmmmm Why do the blacks celebrate him? He was racist. But don't take my word for it. Ask the Dakota Sioux.
 

Ben H

Well-known member
I need to read more about "Honest" Abe, I laughed it off when my Native American Studies teacher at Cornell started going off about him, that teacher was a white guy who hated white people. But the more I read about Abe the more I am starting to understand why his life ended the way it did. Not that I approve of that sort of thing, I'm just saying I can see why it would cause someone to do that.

I'm curious how the civil war is taught in school in other regions, being a Damn Yankee, I was taught that it was a war to end slavery. That is incredibly far from the truth.
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
My understanding of the Civil War is that it had little to do with freeing the slaves. And everything to do with economics and a power struggle between the Industrial North and the agricultural South. I imagine some of you Southerners will remark on this but this has been my understanding since I was a teenager, that Abe Lincoln was not a knight in shining armor. Despite being a good speech writer.

Well, it had little to do with the abolition of slavery, but it certainly had a lot to do with the institution of slavery and whether it would be extended to new states or not.

The idea that is was simply about "states rights" is basically meaningless unless you put it in the context of the contested "state right" which happened to be slavery.

Lincoln was clearly a racist. But he was also someone who's views on the subject of slavery evolved during his tumultuous presidency, so that by the end, he was much more sympathetic to the abolitionist cause than he was at the beginning, and for this he deserves some credit.

Thank god for the abolitionists.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Yes Abe's remark is racist as well. Thomas Jefferson and others -- both black and white -- knew better a hundred years before Abe.

I had a hard time believing that Schweitzer said that quote, given his history.

I have met South Africans and been amazed at the things they say about the races, and I'm speaking about Indian South Africans who are not considered white. I hope that in a hundred years the things we say about the races in the U.S. will be as obsolete and far fetched to our descendents.

It'll never happen until the race baiters are told to sit down and shut up.
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
reader (the Second) said:
Yes Abe's remark is racist as well. Thomas Jefferson and others -- both black and white -- knew better a hundred years before Abe.

I had a hard time believing that Schweitzer said that quote, given his history.

I have met South Africans and been amazed at the things they say about the races, and I'm speaking about Indian South Africans who are not considered white. I hope that in a hundred years the things we say about the races in the U.S. will be as obsolete and far fetched to our descendents.

It'll never happen until the race baiters are told to sit down and shut up.

That's what people who have been fighting the civil rights battles for the last century have been told repeatedly.

I'm sure that would be convenient for some of you here, but it isn't going to happen.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
There's a night and day difference between somebody who is challenging legitimate racism and somebody who is stirring the crap and hollering wolf.
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
There's a night and day difference between somebody who is challenging legitimate racism and somebody who is stirring the crap and hollering wolf.

That's what people who have been fighting the civil rights battles for the last century have been told repeatedly.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
Sandhusker said:
There's a night and day difference between somebody who is challenging legitimate racism and somebody who is stirring the crap and hollering wolf.

That's what people who have been fighting the civil rights battles for the last century have been told repeatedly.

They were told the truth. Blacks not being allowed at the lunch counter is legitimate racism. Blacks excluded from public schools is racism. The Duke Lacrosse deal was hollering wolf. The Gates deal was hollering wolf. Saying somebody is racist just because they have no use for Comrade Pinnociobama is hollering wolf - and showing the maturity and intellect of a 3rd grader. Are you excited that your classes will start again? Did your summer go fast?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Reader, "And let me explain what racism is once again -- or rather what it means to stereotype -- to describe an entire collection of people in some way based on their gender, race, ethnicity, skin color, religion. "

So then wouldn't the comment "Typical white person" be racist? Seems to me that statement is describing an entire collection of people based on their skin color/race.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Looks like you just stepped in a big pile again, doesn't it Reader? You running away again says quite a bit. Dang, that truth hurts. How's it feel supporting a racist?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
It's 11:30 here and I have morning meetings so I'm actually reading email and going to sleep soon.

Have enough fun for one night and a long day.[/i]

You weren't on the debate team, were you? :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Ben H

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Racism is ugly and to be silent when people make racist statements reflects upon you.

Pointing fingers at examples of reverse racism still doesn't excuse racism.

And let me explain what racism is once again -- or rather what it means to stereotype -- to describe an entire collection of people in some way based on their gender, race, ethnicity, skin color, religion.

White men can't jump.
Laplanders don't bathe.
Gallegos talk too much.

Singling out someone who is different than you are and using their different appearance or beliefs to label them in a pejorative way that is unwarranted also shows bias, e.g.,

Calling Mike a "red neck" shows bias.
Calling him Abner or referring to him as one of the Beverly hillbillies shows bias.

The personal insults that are used against the President and First Lady that use a caricature based on their racial status shows bias.

Now when you're the majority, it may not bother you as much because it's infrequent that you encounter bias but if you have ever been a despised minority, you aren't going to take kindly to such biased personal insults.

Kind of like Obama calling his grandmother "a typical white person."
 

MsSage

Well-known member
I have a question for the all knowing ...
If I said all african americans are black would I be right?





When some people use the "race" they attach a biological meaning, still others use "race" as a socially constructed concept. It is clear that even though race does not have a biological meaning, it does have a social meaning which has been legally constructed.

Ian F. Haney Lopez, The Social Construction of Race: Some Observations on Illusion, Fabrication, and Choice, 29 Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 1-62, 6-7, 11-17 (Winter, 1994)


And let me explain what racism is once again
too bad you have to keep explaining to us po dum cow people wez jus cant git it fru r thik heads wez aint got no edumakshun and need yuz to teach us

Too bad it seems even at Harvard they have a hard time defining race as well...hmmm
 
Top