Ronald Reagan revealed as racist

[Ophiolite]

But I have a question for you, Mr. Kentonio. Do you believe in Darwin's racist theory of evolution??

What do you think is racist about the theory? Details, if possible.

 

[Belk]

Yes, EVERY past president had his faults! (Oh, and the current one too.) As they say, nobody's perfect.

But I have a question for you, Mr. Kentonio. Do you believe in Darwin's racist theory of evolution??

 

[iluvatar5150]

No, i listened to the recordings.

He said no such thing, He agreed only.

You need to go listen to all the tapes.

And when he said the words Africans monkeys, He stumbled in a unconformable way.

What on earth are you talking about? It's one thing for folks to deny what should be an obvious interpretation of things, but denying the underlying facts of a situation is something else entirely. (and something that seems to be happening more and more).

If you follow the links in the Atlantic piece, they take you to Nixon recording 013-008, which is the entirety of this phone call between Reagan and Nixon:
Conversation 013-008 | Richard Nixon Museum and Library

The relevant section about "monkeys" starts at 6:30. Reagan, not Nixon, was the one who steered the conversation back to the Africans at the UN. Reagan, not Nixon, was the one who made that comment. Unless you just mixed up who was speaking, there's no possible way to listen to that recording and honestly come to the interpretation you did.

 

[wing2000]

Audio recordings of Reagan talking to Nixon in October 1971 have been revealed, proving once and for all that Reagan was a revolting racist.



Ronald Reagan's Long-Hidden Racist Conversation with Richard Nixon

From that gentle time when Republican politicians still bothered to keep their racism behind closed doors.

....a private phone conversation in 1971.

Reagan makes a racist joke and we are to consider him a "virulent racist"?

 

[Nithavela]

The relevant section about "monkeys" starts at 6:30. Reagan, not Nixon, was the one who steered the conversation back to the Africans at the UN. Reagan, not Nixon, was the one who made that comment. Unless you just mixed up who was speaking, there's no possible way to listen to that recording and honestly come to the interpretation you did.

I can think of some ways.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I can think of some ways.

I used the word "honestly" for a reason.

But even then, it's one thing to argue that this isn't racist. It's another thing altogether to claim that Reagan didn't say it or that he merely stammered in response to somebody else saying something. Whatever you think of the meaning of the words, that's just an entirely incorrect description of the conversation.

 

[Nithavela]

I used the word "honestly" for a reason.

But even then, it's one thing to argue that this isn't racist. It's another thing altogether to claim that Reagan didn't say it or that he merely stammered in response to somebody else saying something. Whatever you think of the meaning of the words, that's just an entirely incorrect description of the conversation.

I think that some people can honestly state a lot of untrue things. Honest doesn't mean its true, only that they believe it to be true.

All humans have filters in their mind that only allow those things through that they can allow themselves to accept as true. Everything else gets deleted before it can challenge the fragile human conciousness.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I think that some people can honestly state a lot of untrue things. Honest doesn't mean its true, only that they believe it to be true.

All humans have filters in their mind that only allow those things through that they can allow themselves to accept as true. Everything else gets deleted before it can challenge the fragile human conciousness.

I think lying to yourself is a form of dishonesty.

 

[Nithavela]

I think lying to yourself is a form of dishonesty.

It's not if you are not doing it on purpose but when it's just your subconciousness protecting your wrong worldview because abandoning would be too painfull or damaging.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Thanks, but who released them is not directly relevant to the question I asked: how do we know that these aren't deep faked? Remember the Pentagon Papers?

The Pentagon Papers were also authentic.

Who released them is relevant. That's what archives do... they have the complete chain of custody over the material.

 

[ananda]

The Pentagon Papers were also authentic.

Who released them is relevant. That's what archives do... they have the complete chain of custody over the material.

I pointed out the Pentagon Papers to show that they documented how the gov't previously lied.

 

[eleos1954]

Audio recordings of Reagan talking to Nixon in October 1971 have been revealed, proving once and for all that Reagan was a racist. - SE

Ronald Reagan's Long-Hidden Racist Conversation with Richard Nixon

From that gentle time when Republican politicians still bothered to keep their racism behind closed doors.

Audio recordings of Reagan talking to Nixon in October 1971 have been revealed, proving once and for all that Reagan was a a racist. - SE



Ronald Reagan's Long-Hidden Racist Conversation with Richard Nixon

From that gentle time when Republican politicians still bothered to keep their racism behind closed doors.

well they are both dead now so no need to be concerned about it

 

[Deborah D]

There is absolutely nothing racist about the theory of evolution.

Not according to Darwin's book titled On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.

Darwin said this in his book The Descent of Man:

The western nations of Europe, who now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors, and stand at the summit of civilisation, owe little or none of their superiority to direct inheritance from the old Greeks, though they owe much to the written works of that wonderful people.
[Volume I, chapter V: "On the Development of the Intellectual and Moral Faculties during Primeval and Civilised Times" (second edition, 1874) page 141]
​

Edit: This shows how wrong Darwin was in his ideas about what he considered "races" of humans. But if he had not rejected Bible truth, he would have concluded that there is only one race of humans--the human race.

In Genesis we are told that God created a man from the dust of the earth. He created woman from man. All humans descended from this one man and one woman, not from apes or any other creature.

Therefore, there is NO superior or inferior "race" of humans. We are ALL humans created by God in His image.

 

[LoAmmi]

Not according to Darwin's book titled On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.

Darwin said this in his book The Descent of Man:

The western nations of Europe, who now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors, and stand at the summit of civilisation, owe little or none of their superiority to direct inheritance from the old Greeks, though they owe much to the written works of that wonderful people.
[Volume I, chapter V: "On the Development of the Intellectual and Moral Faculties during Primeval and Civilised Times" (second edition, 1874) page 141]
​

Edit: This shows how wrong Darwin was in his ideas about what he considered "races" of humans. But if he had not rejected Bible truth, he would have concluded that there is only one race of humans--the human race.

In Genesis we are told that God created a man from the dust of the earth. He created woman from man. All humans descended from this one man and one woman, not from apes or any other creature.

Therefore, there is NO superior or inferior "race" of humans. We are ALL humans created by God in His image.

So, you name the title of one book, which is the actual theory, and quote from another which isn't. Care to find something from the book whose title you decided was racist?

Besides, the modern theory has nothing to do with races. All humans are the same species, so "race" doesn't enter into it.

 

[Deborah D]

So, you name the title of one book, which is the actual theory, and quote from another which isn't. Care to find something from the book whose title you decided was racist?

LOL, the full title (which is rarely used) of Darwin's first book reveals his belief that some "races" are "favored" or superior to others.

The quote from his second book reveals his belief that Western Europeans (i.e. whites) were superior to the darker-skinned "races." In this book he said that the "highest races" and "lowest savages" differed in "intellect."

Anyone who tries to refute the fact that Darwin had racist ideas either has not read Darwin's own writing or is believing a lie. But he didn't just have racist ideas; his entire theory promotes racism of the worst degree.

 

[Kentonio]

Not according to Darwin's book titled On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.

Darwin said this in his book The Descent of Man:

The western nations of Europe, who now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors, and stand at the summit of civilisation, owe little or none of their superiority to direct inheritance from the old Greeks, though they owe much to the written works of that wonderful people.
[Volume I, chapter V: "On the Development of the Intellectual and Moral Faculties during Primeval and Civilised Times" (second edition, 1874) page 141]
​

Edit: This shows how wrong Darwin was in his ideas about what he considered "races" of humans. But if he had not rejected Bible truth, he would have concluded that there is only one race of humans--the human race.

In Genesis we are told that God created a man from the dust of the earth. He created woman from man. All humans descended from this one man and one woman, not from apes or any other creature.

Therefore, there is NO superior or inferior "race" of humans. We are ALL humans created by God in His image.

James Watson, one of the founders of modern biology is also a vile racist. Does that mean his scientific discoveries are invalid? No absolutely not. Darwin’s theory changed the world forever and was one of the most important scientific ideas ever. Him being a racist (and probably having lots of other deeply unpleasant opinions, given the age he grew up in) doesn’t change the validity of evolution one iota.

Incidentally, just in case I wasn’t clear. I couldn’t agree with you more about us all being one race, despite me not sharing your religion beliefs.

 

[Deborah D]

Incidentally, just in case I wasn’t clear. I couldn’t agree with you more about us all being one race, despite me not sharing your religion beliefs.

It's nice that you and I agree on something. I sincerely hope that you will come to know the God who made you in His image!

 

[Kentonio]

Anyone who tries to refute the fact that Darwin had racist ideas either has not read Darwin's own writing or is believing a lie. But he didn't just have racist ideas; his entire theory promotes racism of the worst degree.

On the first point you’re entirely correct but on the second I’m afraid entirely wrong. Evolution does not promote racism in any way, and it’s not a ‘theory’ as in a guess. A scientific theory, means something very different to the word theory we use in common parlance.

A definition: “A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.”

 

[Halbhh]

Audio recordings of Reagan talking to Nixon in October 1971 have been revealed, proving once and for all that Reagan was a racist. - SE



Ronald Reagan's Long-Hidden Racist Conversation with Richard Nixon

From that gentle time when Republican politicians still bothered to keep their racism behind closed doors.

When I was a young teenager, I heard the rhetoric against president Jimmy Carter, even on the radio (political stuff in the 1970s), and I partly bought it, in that I imagined Reagan was some hero for what America could be, because Reagan was a very good actor, you know, in a way, at least politically. He was clever politically.

Unlike Carter. But look at the record for Carter:

Carter Work Project
https://americanprofile.com/articles/philanthropic-side-of-jimmy-carter/
Jimmy Carter: Charity Work & Causes - Look to the Stars

See?

What does that tell you? It tells you Carter's Christianity isn't just a political show.

 

[Kentonio]

When I was a young teenager, I heard the rhetoric against president Jimmy Carter, even on the radio (political stuff in the 1970s), and I partly bought it, in that I imagined Reagan was some hero for what America could be, because Reagan was a very good actor, you know, in a way, at least politically. He was clever politically.

Unlike Carter. But look at the record for Carter:

Carter Work Project
https://americanprofile.com/articles/philanthropic-side-of-jimmy-carter/
Jimmy Carter: Charity Work & Causes - Look to the Stars

See?

What does that tell you? It tells you Carter's Christianity isn't just a political show.

Of all the major political figures of the last century, Jimmy Carter is probably the only one where I think he is probably a genuinely good guy and not just a guy who did some good things.

Maybe I just don’t know enough about him, but he really does give off that vibe.