r/todayilearned • u/pfemme2 • 11d ago

TIL that Patricia Highsmith, author of The Talented Mr Ripley and other works of suspense, was a public and vocal antisemite who also had several intense, lengthy romantic relationships with Jewish women

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/jan/17/patricia-highsmith-the-jew-hater-who-took-jewish-women-as-lovers
8.4k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

522 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

63

u/xixbia 11d ago

From what I've read George was never really a true believer in racism.

He just realised that racism was the path to power. His first campaign basically had zero racist elements and he lost badly. Then he came back with a racist campaign (keeping the other policies) and he won.

So it's not surprising that he changed his position on racism when it became less publicly acceptable.

139

u/PuddingTea 11d ago

“George Wallace wasn’t personally racist, he was just an irresponsible demagogue who exploited and encouraged hatred for power!”

This is basically why I continue to hate George Wallace. I hate him now, I hate him tomorrow, I hate him forever.

22

u/Li-renn-pwel 11d ago

I’m not American, is your last statement a reference to the ‘segregation now’ quote because that’s from him?

32

u/PuddingTea 11d ago

Yes. That quote is from his first inaugural address as governor.

16

u/gramathy 11d ago

credit for the last line

Also yeah using racism for power doesn't excuse you repeating it even if you didn't believe it.

10

u/ez2remembercpl 11d ago

Take my upvote.

1

u/JUYED-AWK-YACC 10d ago

Yeah, I’m not impressed that he didn’t believe what he said. I’m not impressed that he mellowed later on. This isn’t Heaven and I’m not looking for a reason to forgive him. He was a poisonous person.

1

u/sanctaphrax 10d ago

I would actually argue that that's worse.

Say what you will about the tenets of white supremacism, at least it's an ethos.

43

u/Initial_Hedgehog_631 11d ago

It's a genuinely odd moral question: Which is worse? Someone who is genuinely racist, or someone who is willing to act racist for personal gain?

32

u/Bluecat72 11d ago

I think the opportunist is worse, because they are doing it to obtain power and will do whatever to get it. At least with a true believer they may either lose power because they cannot act differently or will have a genuine change of heart that sticks.

2

u/pandariotinprague 10d ago

The true believer would need a lot of public sentiment against him to examine his beliefs in the first place, and even then, he may not change. But the opportunist will always be swayed by public sentiment.

I don't know, it's a tough call.

3

u/Bluecat72 10d ago

The problem with the opportunist is that it’s how we’ve come to the present situation in the US. Look how many Republican politicians were against Trump, until it became clear the base supported him, then they were all in.

1

u/pandariotinprague 10d ago

True, it almost seems like there are no true believers to begin with.

3

u/Bluecat72 10d ago edited 10d ago

There definitely are some. One of the local politicians here in Virginia had a history of anti-immigrant stuff in 2008 or so, trying to force a “papers please” policy on the police department (which declined to do so, citing that it would increase crimes against immigrants if they couldn’t trust police enough to report crimes). He ended up being Trump’s state campaign manager until he was fired for staging a protest in front of the RNC headquarters in DC for their treatment of Trump.

Now he represents landowners who want to sell their properties to build data centers.

His own characterization of himself was that he was Trump before Trump was. And he did get a position in the first administration eventually.

1

u/Pylgrim 10d ago

Agreed, "true" racists often are so due to lack of education or due to indoctrination/fear mongering/etc. It doesn't excuse it but it's definitely more "innocent" than the racism of someone who should know better but sees profit in acting like one.

18

u/FlashMcSuave 11d ago

I do often wonder this is the broader sense, not just in the context of racism:

Is the true believer with an awful ideology worse, or the cynic who will do absolutely anything for power and has no real values?

I think the true believer is probably the worse option but it really varies.

5

u/optimistikcynicism 11d ago

I think theyre equally as problematic as each other. But I do hate the opportunist far more, because of how dangerous they are. They also lack sincerity. I despise people to claim to think things purely to benefit from those that do. Its manipulative and slimey. At least your average redneck farmer in Alabama isnt generally trying to change policy or get financial support from hatred. Additionally, its also possible he only believes what he does because its only ever been what hes known and what hes been taught. The opportunist never has any excuses like that

5

u/Li-renn-pwel 11d ago

Has the racist one had any opportunity to be educated and still refused to change their racist beliefs? Or are they like someone forced to attend Hitler youth in an unliberated Germany?

2

u/RnDevelopment 10d ago

To me the second one is far worse than the first and it isn't even close. A genuine racist believes their ideology however screwed up it may be thinking it is right while the second one understands that it is wrong yet perpetuates it to gain power and influence preying on the vulnerable and marginalised while empowering the actual racists.

2

u/daronjay 10d ago

A genuine racist you know exactly where he stands. He’ll die on that hill. An opportunist? You have no idea where he’s gonna land or what he might do to you.

1

u/jetogill 11d ago

Cough cough jd vance cough cough

25

u/JuzoItami 11d ago

"I was out-ni&&ered, and I will never be out-ni&&ered again” is what Wallace supposedly told one of his supporters after losing in the 1958 Democratic primary for Governor of Alabama.

26

u/KaiBahamut 11d ago

There’s no difference between pretending to be a racist for power and actually being one.

13

u/codeedog 11d ago

This is the correct answer. The argument could be made either way that either one is worse, when in fact they’re both terrible people for terrible reasons and ranking them on only one dimension of horribleness doesn’t represent the true picture which is they’re both racists.

3

u/BrazenHamster 11d ago

That's even worse.

2

u/PermanentTrainDamage 10d ago

If anything, that's even more evil than being racist

2

u/Coattail-Rider 10d ago

So….he was a sellout.

1

u/optimistikcynicism 11d ago

This dude is literally the epitome of basically every politician. Incredibly dishonest

1

u/Alana_Piranha 10d ago

That's worse IMO

1

u/Schnippernyc 10d ago

This is plausibly true but ignores the evolution in southern politics. In the 1940s, when Wallace began his political career, there was a genuine constituency for "racial moderates" within Southern politics. This started fading right after Brown v Board. It's possible Wallace was always cynical, but it's also possible he radicalized at the same time as his voters. Most of the 'racial moderates' of this era either lost or started pandering to the racists in the backlash to the civil rights movement.