...No, judging literally by the "color of a man's skin" is actually called colorism, and it's distinct from racism (though of course closely linked to it).
No. Colorism is not a thing. You hate a person because of how he/she looks, then it is racism. Do you have different categories for "kinky-hairism" or "slanty-eyeism"?
I'm not to blame for your ignorance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_based_on_skin_color"Colorism" is the word used for people that e.g. discriminate between lighter-skinned black people and darker-skinned black people.
Previously you spoke about discriminating on the "color of a man's skin" alone being racism. Now you are yourself realizing that the way that racists handle race isn't about skin-color alone, but that they care about other superficial characteristics also like "slanty eyes", and have expanded your understanding to "appearance" in general.
Except that these racists don't actually care about those superficial characteristics by themselves EITHER! They instead use them as a PROXY for (duh!) ancestry. Do you think that racists care if a white person goes and gets tanned in the beach? No, they don't.
But they care very much about a person's ANCESTRY!!! People's appearance for racists is actually unimportant, their racism is judging people by their *genetical ancestry* (and they use the apperance just as a proxy).
Now, modern day racists like Trump have done away with this proxy, and are claiming themselves non-racist, because they supposedly don't discriminate against black people, they simply discriminate against... people of Sub-saharan ancestry? They don't discriminate against Latinos, they simply discriminate against... people of Mexican and Puerto Rican ancestry? They don't discriminate against... "slanty-eyed" people, they simply discriminate against people of Asian ancestry? They don't discriminate against brown people, they simply discriminate against people of Arab ancestry?
Well, geez, how nice that you people can avoid accusations of racism, by merely attacking directly the ancestry of the people you want to attack, namely the thing that racists actually wanted to attack anyway!
You think MLK would have been fine with discrimination based on whether one's ancestors came from Africa or not, as long as the discrimination wasn't specifically skin-color based?
Have you not heard of black people that could "pass" for white, but they would still be considered black by racists, because racists don't actually care about skin color, but about ancestry instead?
None of those racists switched parties. That started as Dems and remained Dems.
1956:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_United_States_presidential_electionEvery state Republican, except a handful in the Deep South which were Democratic. (back when the Democrats were the party of the racists)
1964, eight years later:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_United_States_presidential_electionEvery state Democratic, except a handful in the Deep South which were Republican.
1968:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_United_States_presidential_electionThe same Deep South goes to George Wallace
I am guessing you don't think George Wallace to have been a racist either?
So, either the Deep South suddenly around 1960 became non-racist and the rest of the country became relatively less racist, or instead we had a political realignment of the parties around 1960. Evidence suggests the latter.
Quite a doofus argument. If course anyone can be attacked. But Trump is a people's president and doesn't have a racist bone in his body. Those four idiots, otherwise known as AOC plus three, said unAmerican things that should have gotten them expelled from Congress, but the Dems looked away and did nothing. Any mention of what THEY SAID resulted in whoever reported it being called racist.
I don't care about how it was reported, I judged Trump's statement by itself, as it stood.
He attacked them on the basis of their ancestry. That was racist: inherently so, unambiguously so, without further discussion on the subject needed or warranted.
