You know you are getting to them when they call you racist. When they add homophone and bigot you know you have won the argument.

Notice I quoted myself...….apparently I'm the only one who can do so without altering my words.

Also note that I did not mention the hat. While noting things, please also note that the bold sentence was omitted by everyone who continues to misquote me. When I used the word academically, I meant for me. EXPLAIN to me why it is not. I thought my question was polite.

The hat being a hat is not the issue for those who oppose it. The MAGA slogan is. I'm not asking to prove a negative. The red hat/MAGA slogan IS already deemed racist by some (refer to the bold sentence in my original quote.)

I used the word academic to suggest crafting an intellectual argument. Make a few points, use logic, etc. It was a response to the title of this thread and the first post on the page. Essentially, I meant use some words to explain yourself.

I politely asked a question about my INITIAL THOUGHTS and as a result have been misquoted and taken out of context for pages now.

Why is everybody so mad?
.

A hat is not racist because it is a hat. Hats don't think so they can't have racist thoughts. They can't speak so cannot say racist things. The only message on the hat, Make America Great Again, makes no reference to racism. How's that?

Not to you only to those who suffered racism.Its like a slap in the face to them.
Wearing a hat that says the past was great (but the past was racist)-no way will they want to go back to that.They see people who want to make america the way it was in the past as wanting to return to racism.
Very easy to see their take on it, whether it means that or not to you, that is what it means to them.

The absurdity of this argument and the entire premise behind us is mind-numbing.

Cedarblock starts off with “Academically speaking, explain why a hat is NOT racist.” As said, that’s asking to prove a negative, which is about the most un-academic request one can make. It’s like “explain why that tree isn’t racist.” The premise is both counter-academic and illogical.

Then we have Boco reminding us 4 or 5 times that the issue is other people’s “historical reality,” as if we’re going to magically see the liberal light if he says it enough times. What does that have to do with someone’s choice of hat? Every single person has different history, and every demographic- race, sex, nationality, religion, occupation, and creed— has historical ups and downs. What Boco (and the liberal race-bating dividers) are proposing is that if someone makes a positive reference to the past, and that past includes hardship for any person or demographic, then that statement is thereby racist, along with the person making it.

So let’s put this principal to the test:

I got married in 2013. It’s a happy memory for me. Can I publicly celebrate that? Well let’s see. Alberta flooded that year, and Lac-Megantic blew up. Wouldn’t want to remind any Canadians of that trauma. Also a hurricane hit the Philippines and killed 5000 people. Let’s not forget the Boston Marathon Bomber. Way too much risk of flashbacks for too many people. Let’s not talk positively about 2013.

How about a bigger scale? What about a year like 1945, the end of WWII? Surely that’s something we could all celebrate right? The year we liberated Europe from Nazism, Asia from Japanese imperialism, freed hundreds of thousands from concentration camps, millions of soldiers came home, and the Allied nations were the most united in history? Well many of us could celebrate that, but what if you’re Japanese and your family was interned or bombed? What if your ancestors didn’t make it home? What if you’re Jewish and lost your family in the camps? Or what if you’re black and remember that the military was still segregated then? Can any of us celebrate?

We celebrate the 4th of July, our Independence Day. Is that racist? Since there was slavery then? That a group of white men dared to revolt against tyranny and forge a new nation unprecedented in model? Is the Constitution racist if there weren’t any minority signers?

Is there any period of history that doesn’t include hardship for someone? Is it ok to celebrate it anyway? Has the lie of political correctness become so pervasive that a positive reference to history can be seen as “racist” simply because history includes racism?

Is America’s whole history racist because it includes racism? Is it really unacceptable call a nation “great” if it’s history includes some ugliness? What is the definition of “great,” historical perfection?

Here’s the thing- if someone says something about a period of history that brings back trauma for me, that doesn’t make them a racist or mean they hate me. Maybe they had a good run and I had a bad run back then. Maybe I still am. Maybe my ancestors were treated wrong. It doesn’t mean it’s their fault. It’s not wrong for them to talk about it. They can celebrate something that I don’t. It doesn’t have to be fair; life isn’t fair. All it is is me choosing a victim identity.

Here’s what I think: my father isn’t perfect, but he’s great. My grandfather and my ancestors weren’t perfect, but they were great. The tough, salty folks who came home from “the war”, and every war, certainly aren’t perfect, but they are great, and the world is greater for for them. The folks who fought to end slavery, segregation and discrimination are great. And you know what, I dare to say we even had some racist slave owners who did some greatness in other ways, once upon a time. It doesn’t excuse their sin, but it also doesn’t negate their good.

This country of ours isn’t perfect. It never has been and never will be. We’ve treated people wrongly, and sometimes still do. But, God bless her, she’s also done a heck of a lot of greatness for the world. She was great, she is great, and we WILL continue to make her great. God Bless the USA, and keep making her great.

There’s my essay for the week.

If someone wants to hate another people who treated them and theirs unjustly, history is plum full of examples to draw from. Pick one. If you know history.

My wife is polish heritage and as such she is a "slav".... the medieval Latin word for "slave." The Greeks had a similar term. Today we call these nation groups Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, Czechs, Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Slovenes, Macedonians, Bulgarians, Hungarians, etc. = a bunch of "Slavic" people groups.
But they hadn't carved out nations much at that time period so there were just kingdoms more or less throughout the land.
Why'd they call a vast region of people slavs or slaves?

Because starting around the 6th century, a couple centuries after Rome is sacked by the Visigoths and the Roman Empire implodes after a millennium of power the world had never seen before that, chaos now rules over the lands for centuries - and these groups of "slavs," existed in Eurasia, a bad spot as it turned out geographically.

Slavs were smaller bands of people, sandwiched between fiercer bigger, stronger, groups. They often lived in inhospitable places, trying not to be taken capture or killed.
Mongols, Persians (Turks) and Huns from their east would raid the slavs and pillage and _______.
Visigoths, Vandals, Angles, Saxons, Franks, from their west and south would raid the slavs and pillage and _______.
Men were killed and tortured of course, or made "slavs." Women were often taken back, as spoils of war.... also as "slavs."

You can imagine how wonderful and rosy those days must have been like. "Little house on the eurasian prairie" kind of days no doubt.

There's a reason they don't teach history anymore. History might give someone a bit of perspective.
Or you can teach pieces of history, that give your narrative precedence and serves a specific purpose. That's what they do in "American" history classes now.

Sadly, there are some who cloak their righteousness with ignorance. They don't know what they don't know. And sadly, sometimes they don't want to know because they like what they like about what they like and don't know!
They may not know that the term ignorant wasn't a derogatory term historically.... until this recent century. It was simply a term meaning; a state of "not knowing."
Call someone ignorant today and see what happens. Modernists have now deemed this word offensive, because it may burst a head knowledge bubble.

Simply, all people groups have a heritage of bad, bad stuff and good, good stuff, and we're all sitting here today as that progeny.
If we choose to hate, it ain't hard to find a reason.

Thankfully, my wife doesn't hate me - because my Anglo ancestors probably had some of Donna's slav ancestors tending their stock, gardens, homes and more.

Just read this post.You have to be kidding me . People are wearing a hat that says make my country great again .And some one comes along attacking that ? Why? I think besides being a liberal dem. he is better at doing what James does than James is . Also here comes Boco who sees yet another chance to once again knock America . Have you read your own countries news lately? Oh by the way as you like to say these are just my initial thoughts. lol

If someone wants to hate another people who treated them and theirs unjustly, history is plum full of examples to draw from. Pick one. If you know history.

My wife is polish heritage and as such she is a "slav".... the medieval Latin word for "slave." The Greeks had a similar term. Today we call these nation groups Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, Czechs, Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Slovenes, Macedonians, Bulgarians, Hungarians, etc. = a bunch of "Slavic" people groups.
But they hadn't carved out nations much at that time period so there were just kingdoms more or less throughout the land.
Why'd they call a vast region of people slavs or slaves?

Because starting around the 6th century, a couple centuries after Rome is sacked by the Visigoths and the Roman Empire implodes after a millennium of power the world had never seen before that, chaos now rules over the lands for centuries - and these groups of "slavs," existed in Eurasia, a bad spot as it turned out geographically.

Slavs were smaller bands of people, sandwiched between fiercer bigger, stronger, groups. They often lived in inhospitable places, trying not to be taken capture or killed.
Mongols, Persians (Turks) and Huns from their east would raid the slavs and pillage and _______.
Visigoths, Vandals, Angles, Saxons, Franks, from their west and south would raid the slavs and pillage and _______.
Men were killed and tortured of course, or made "slavs." Women were often taken back, as spoils of war.... also as "slavs."

You can imagine how wonderful and rosy those days must have been like. "Little house on the eurasian prairie" kind of days no doubt.

There's a reason they don't teach history anymore. History might give someone a bit of perspective.
Or you can teach pieces of history, that give your narrative precedence and serves a specific purpose. That's what they do in "American" history classes now.

Sadly, there are some who cloak their righteousness with ignorance. They don't know what they don't know. And sadly, sometimes they don't want to know because they like what they like about what they like and don't know!
They may not know that the term ignorant wasn't a derogatory term historically.... until this recent century. It was simply a term meaning; a state of "not knowing."
Call someone ignorant today and see what happens. Modernists have now deemed this word offensive, because it may burst a head knowledge bubble.

Simply, all people groups have a heritage of bad, bad stuff and good, good stuff, and we're all sitting here today as that progeny.
If we choose to hate, it ain't hard to find a reason.

Thankfully, my wife doesn't hate me - because my Anglo ancestors probably had some of Donna's slav ancestors tending their stock, gardens, homes and more.

Liberals that say black people are showing there own racism. People are people no reason to label them black,Hispanic,Asian, or white a non racist would just call them people.

Liberals that say black people are showing there own racism. People are people no reason to label them black,Hispanic,Asian, or white a non racist would just call them people.

Most here cant understand why people with a different negative past life experience dont think or see the world like they do.They want things to change not go back to a time that was hurtful to their parents and grandparents.Thats how they see it and it is not wrong for them.They will never see things the same way that we see it.
To tell people who live a different reality than you,how they should see and interpret things is arrogant to say the least.

Most here cant understand why people with a different negative past life experience dont think or see the world like they do.They want things to change not go back to a time that was hurtful to their parents and grandparents.Thats how they see it and it is not wrong for them.They will never see things the same way that we see it.
To tell people who live a different reality than you,how they should see and interpret things is arrogant to say the least.

Most here cant understand why people with a different negative past life experience dont think or see the world like they do.They want things to change not go back to a time that was hurtful to their parents and grandparents.Thats how they see it and it is not wrong for them.They will never see things the same way that we see it.
To tell people who live a different reality than you,how they should see and interpret things is arrogant to say the least.

Strange how you focus only on the responses that say an inanimate object cannot be racist while completely ignoring the responses that directly address the challenge you issued. At the top of page 4 KenaiKid gives an excellent response, yet you ignore it. There are also a couple of strong points on page 2 such as Mike in a Town's comment about a KC Royals hat. Again, crickets. So, how about a response to these comments that "Make a few points, use logic, etc."

I too have long wondered how the MAGA slogan is racist. Some posters on this thread have done a very good job explaining how it could be construed that way. This thread is also full of reasons why it is not. This whole thing boils down to whether or not you believe the following statement: One bad apple spoils the whole bunch.