...
I know... because I know a lot of white people who are uneducated low-life loser scumbags. Being white has nothing to do with 'elite'.
...
P.S. I hate the way the term, 'elite' gets tossed around so easily these days. It's the adult equivilent to the 13 year olds use of the term, 'sell-out'.
Yeah, and the point was, not everyone who calls the shots is some cackling old white guy who likes keeping down the darkies ... The world is a lot more complex.
I've noticed the only people who seem to bring up the race card on this board are Obama supporters with things like:
'It will be so nice to finally get a black person in office'
'The fact that a black man is the leading contender for president shows how much progress we have made as a nation'
To me, it would be nice if we finally got a president in office who deserved it and we didn't have to settle.
And there would be progress in this nation if we didn't even see the color of Obama's skin as a factor at all but rather what he stands for and what he has done.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Other than specific comments, the fact that he attended a blatantly racist church for 20 years...and donated money to it...makes me believe he's a racist.
i guess you missed the lilly white catholic priest who gave the sermon the other day about hillarys white entitlement... the sermon that forced obama to leave the church, it was given by a white man... so i guess the white guy was racist towards whites? :rolleyes:
that church isnt racist, it is simply telling the truth
To me, it would be nice if we finally got a president in office who deserved it and we didn't have to settle.
If one of the major parties nominated someone that fit your perfect mold for president, the vast majority of the people voting for him or her would still be "settling." And even then, it might not be enough to put that person in the White House.
And there would be progress in this nation if we didn't even see the color of Obama's skin as a factor at all but rather what he stands for and what he has done.
True - just like it's true that it's progress when one of the major political parties nominates a black man, which would be unheard of just a few years ago. What you should be saying is "there would be enough progress for me in this nation..." becasue what's happening now still fits the parameters of "progress."
Yeah, and the point was, not everyone who calls the shots is some cackling old white guy who likes keeping down the darkies ... The world is a lot more complex.
Although I am ...
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
So, first black president means nothing when only 40 years ago, blacks and whites drank from separate fountains?
I don't judge people by race. And last I checked everyone can drink from water fountains now...and this election season is now. If I was running for president it would fucking piss me off if someone tried to bring up me being a woman as some significant factor. I would want it all to be about how I worked hard and deserved to be where I am because of who I am on the inside. I wouldn't need or want anyone feeling bad about how women were treated in the past as being part of why they support me. It would diminish all I did on my own despite gender to get there. I get the same pissed off feeling when people write off my appeal when I'm speaking as just because I'm supposedly pretty. Fuck that! I want it to be because they like what I'm saying. Don't take anything away from me like that!
If one of the major parties nominated someone that fit your perfect mold for president, the vast majority of the people voting for him or her would still be "settling." And even then, it might not be enough to put that person in the White House.
First off, they wouldn't have to be perfect just better than the shit I'm seeing now. So yeah, we all settle because no one matches how we would do the job ourselves exactly. My point is just how much we chose to settle. I'm pretty sure you already knew that, though.
True - just like it's true that it's progress when one of the major political parties nominates a black man, which would be unheard of just a few years ago. What you should be saying is "there would be enough progress for me in this nation..." becasue what's happening now still fits the parameters of "progress."
Focusing on someone's color of skin as having some significance is more of the same to me.
If we truly have progressed past racism, we wouldn't see one person being black as a plus over the other person who is white.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I don't judge people by race. And last I checked everyone can drink from water fountains now...and this election season is now. If I was running for president it would fucking piss me off if someone tried to bring up me being a woman as some significant factor. I would want it all to be about how I worked hard and deserved to be where I am because of who I am on the inside. I wouldn't need or want anyone feeling bad about how women were treated in the past as being part of why they support me. It would diminish all I did on my own despite gender to get there. I get the same pissed off feeling when people write off my appeal when I'm speaking as just because I'm supposedly pretty. Fuck that! I want it to be because they like what I'm saying. Don't take anything away from me like that!
I'm sure Obama feels the same way, as he's not usually the one who brings up race, either. But, when something's different, people notice. When you've had nothing but white male contenders for over two hundred years, people tend to notice when someone's a contender and isn't a white male. It's news.
First off, they wouldn't have to be perfect just better than the shit I'm seeing now. So yeah, we all settle because no one matches how we would do the job ourselves exactly. My point is just how much we chose to settle. I'm pretty sure you already knew that, though.
And some people would have to settle a lot to bring themselves to vote for a candidate you don't have to settle as much for. And for a lot of people like myself, my level of "settling" is bearable this time around.
By my last two thread you can all see I am not a fan of obama, but I certainly dont think he is the antichrist.
Oregon is known as a left wing place, so naturally everyone is gaga for obama.
that said I have heard tell that in the more conservative areas of oregon, obama is being called an antichrist.
are their really people like this?
Yes there are and it's sad. I also do not like Obama, but not to that extreme.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
No argument there. In fact, I've been saying for months that this country hasn't truely progressed past racism - just that it's progressed.
Totally agree with you. I know many people who are still very racist, some being close friends!!
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
I'm sure Obama feels the same way, as he's not usually the one who brings up race, either. But, when something's different, people notice. When you've had nothing but white male contenders for over two hundred years, people tend to notice when someone's a contender and isn't a white male. It's news.
Just because it's news doesn't mean it's right. It shouldn't be an important factor in our decisions or how we look at the candidates....and that's exactly what some people are doing.
And some people would have to settle a lot to bring themselves to vote for a candidate you don't have to settle as much for. And for a lot of people like myself, my level of "settling" is bearable this time around.
Really? Because I do remember you talking about how Kucinich and Nader are just not electable. In fact, I remember hearing it from MOST people here. I guess I must have imagined all those posts saying how they would vote for him but it's simply not viable. (as if they ever will be with attitudes like that)
Really? Because I do remember you talking about how Kucinich and Nader are just not electable. In fact, I remember hearing it from MOST people here. I guess I must have imagined all those posts saying how they would vote for him but it's simply not viable. (as if they ever will be with attitudes like that)
Actually, and I remember talking about this as well, I said that I would have considered voting for Kucinich in the Louisiana Primary were I a registered Democrat. I would also have voted for him in the general had he gotten the nomination. And I have voted for Nader in the past.
But, Kucinich didn't make it, and the Democratic Nominee that did is good enough that I don't feel I have to vote for Nader this time. And I said in the post you quoted that I was settling on Obama - just that it's a tolerable level of settling.
Actually, and I remember talking about this as well, I said that I would have considered voting for Kucinich in the Louisiana Primary were I a registered Democrat. I would also have voted for him in the general had he gotten the nomination. And I have voted for Nader in the past.
But, Kucinich didn't make it, and the Democratic Nominee that did is good enough that I don't feel I have to vote for Nader this time. And I said in the post you quoted that I was settling on Obama - just that it's a tolerable level of settling.
So is it fair to say then, that part of how much you're willing to settle revolves around which candidate has a D beside their name?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I've noticed the only people who seem to bring up the race card on this board are Obama supporters with things like:
'It will be so nice to finally get a black person in office'
'The fact that a black man is the leading contender for president shows how much progress we have made as a nation'
To me, it would be nice if we finally got a president in office who deserved it and we didn't have to settle.
And there would be progress in this nation if we didn't even see the color of Obama's skin as a factor at all but rather what he stands for and what he has done.
Exactly, and these are all ridiculous statements. I think many in the music industry think this way as well. "Yay, he's BLACK!" ...
So is it fair to say then, that part of how much you're willing to settle revolves around which candidate has a D beside their name?
The Democrats are as far right as I go, if that's what you're asking. After 2008, I'll have voted in 5 presidential elections - 3 for independents and 2 for Democrats (current score is 3 to 1). So I guess my indie street cred will still be at 60% righteous.
And, despite popular belief, while the two major parties are both "moderate" parties, they are not exactly the same.
And, despite popular belief, while the two major parties are both "moderate" parties, they are not exactly the same.
That is a frustration with me on this board... with people left of either party, all members of either party are dismissed as exactly the same.
It reminds me of a friend of mine who only listens to country music, in his opinion Pearl Jam is the exact same thing as Nickleback because they are both "alternative rock", and outside of the music that he likes.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Exactly, and these are all ridiculous statements. I think many in the music industry think this way as well. "Yay, he's BLACK!" ...
Damn straight, "yay, he's black." Look, issues are still the main focus for a majority of voters (what issues and under what scrutiny depends on the individual voter), but ethnicity/gender/etc. does add that extra little bit - like that extra little sound or bit of distortion in the background of your favorite song. It doesn't change the time signature, the notes, the lyrics, or anything concretely tangible; but the song wouldn't be the same without it.
People can pretend that white/black/brown/yellow/whatever doesn't mean shit, that we're all enlightened enough to simply acknowledge the "best of the best"; but they're doing just that - pretending. Other people can recognize that there are problems, and complain that we should be beyond all of this - and at least I'm beyond it all - but still forget (or relish, as the case may be) that they left all the ignorant masses behind. History, however, doesn't pretend, and it doesn't acknowledge anything other than the cold, text-book facts: The United States of America never puts a non-white male in contention for President. Until now. That's progress, whether people admit it or not, or whether they think it's enough or not doesn't change that. It is progress.
So, again, "yay, he's black." Not for him. Not for the black community. Not for white guilt. Not for the Democratic Party. For the U.S.
That is a frustration with me on this board... with people left of either party, all members of either party are dismissed as exactly the same.
It reminds me of a friend of mine who only listens to country music, in his opinion Pearl Jam is the exact same thing as Nickleback because they are both "alternative rock", and outside of the music that he likes.
He likes country? Well, hell, he's got no room to talk - that shit is all the same.
The Democrats are as far right as I go, if that's what you're asking. After 2008, I'll have voted in 5 presidential elections - 3 for independents and 2 for Democrats (current score is 3 to 1). So I guess my indie street cred will still be at 60% righteous.
And, despite popular belief, while the two major parties are both "moderate" parties, they are not exactly the same.
There are not enough differences between the two parties for me to bother with either of them generally speaking. You forget I was behind Kucinich 100% and he is a Dem. It's about the issue period for me...all the other things like electability, race, party lines are things that shouldn't matter so I don't let them matter. I can't very well keep complaining about other people focusing on these things to make their votes and all the while I keep doing the same....so I stay true to myself.
Whatever you're going on about street cred speaks to your own insecurities about your vote because that's not what I was getting at. I was getting at the point of focusing on other factors outside of who's the best choice when deciding your vote and which factors do you revolve around how much you will 'settle'. I don't give a crap what anyone else thinks about me or who i vote for and I suggest you do the same....your post seems to say otherwise.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Damn straight, "yay, he's black." Look, issues are still the main focus for a majority of voters (what issues and under what scrutiny depends on the individual voter), but ethnicity/gender/etc. does add that extra little bit - like that extra little sound or bit of distortion in the background of your favorite song. It doesn't change the time signature, the notes, the lyrics, or anything concretely tangible; but the song wouldn't be the same without it.
People can pretend that white/black/brown/yellow/whatever doesn't mean shit, that we're all enlightened enough to simply acknowledge the "best of the best"; but they're doing just that - pretending. Other people can recognize that there are problems, and complain that we should be beyond all of this - and at least I'm beyond it all - but still forget (or relish, as the case may be) that they left all the ignorant masses behind. History, however, doesn't pretend, and it doesn't acknowledge anything other than the cold, text-book facts: The United States of America never puts a non-white male in contention for President. Until now. That's progress, whether people admit it or not, or whether they think it's enough or not doesn't change that. It is progress.
So, again, "yay, he's black." Not for him. Not for the black community. Not for white guilt. Not for the Democratic Party. For the U.S.
"Yay, America."
The US is made up partially of all those groups you listed. The only way to get past focusing on the color of a person's skin is for YOU to not focus on it. It starts inside with each of us. And I for one AM over it...no pretending or relishing here....just living by what I believe. When everyone stops being so concerned with race then I'll say "Yay, America!"
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
The Democrats are as far right as I go, if that's what you're asking. After 2008, I'll have voted in 5 presidential elections - 3 for independents and 2 for Democrats (current score is 3 to 1). So I guess my indie street cred will still be at 60% righteous.
And, despite popular belief, while the two major parties are both "moderate" parties, they are not exactly the same.
you're a (60%) righteous babe, raindog!
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
The US is made up partially of all those groups you listed. The only way to get past focusing on the color of a person's skin is for YOU to not focus on it. It starts inside with each of us. And I for one AM over it...no pretending or relishing here....just living by what I believe. When everyone stops being so concerned with race then I'll say "Yay, America!"
to me that sounds like a colorblind argument or, er, whitewashing. there are different ethnicities, colors, arguably races, etc. it has already been brought up that whites and blacks were drinking out of separate water fountains not too long ago. this country has a very recent history of racism and we haven't properly dealt with it. to just brush it off will only make it worse.
these people can say it better than me right now:
Are we ready for a colorblind society?
John Cheng
I hope we're never ready for a "colorblind" society. I don't like the expression because it sets the wrong terms for discussion when it comes to issues of race, equality, and social justice. To me, "blind" means not being able to see things, and wanting to be "blind" to color or race seems to mean wanting to ignore race or pretend its social and historical effects don't exist. When the larger question is how do we have an equitable society today, we have to be mindful of the historical and social complexities of race, not willfully ignore them. [Unless, of course, one believes that race doesn't have or hasn't had any impact, in which case there's no need for discussion.] We should strive to be color "full" rather than colorblind.
This doesn't mean, however, that we should divide people by race today. A central difficulty is the slipperiness of race and the many forms it's taken historically. To address the issue of race and equality, we must consider color in several different, seemingly contrary ways. The first is to recognize race's illusory status to avoid recapitulating racial categories and racial divides. The second is to acknowledge the real effect those categories have had and continue to have on peoples' lives and circumstances. And the third is to understand that racial divides, by their very nature, create imbalance and inequality.
These various shades of "color" must all be kept in perspective, none at the expense of the other, if we want to address seriously the question of how to be an equitable society today. There may not be a solution, but if there is one, it will almost certainly be difficult, and it will require effort, awareness, and responsibility. We can not afford to be "colorblind." We need to develop our ability to see "color" for what is, has been, and will be, so we're prepared to deal with its consequences.
Dalton Conley
On the one hand, the Civil Rights era officially ended inequality of opportunity. At the same time, civil rights legislation did nothing to address the underlying economic and social inequalities that had built up through hundreds of years of discrimination.
The one statistic that best captures the state of racial inequality in America today is wealth, or net worth. Add up everything you own, subtract all your debts, and that's your net worth. Today, the average white family has eight times the net worth of the average Black family. That difference has grown since the 1960s, and is not explained by other factors like education, earnings rates, and savings rates. It's really the legacy of racial inequality from generations past. No other measure captures the cumulative disadvantage of race, or cumulative advantage of race for Whites, than net worth or wealth.
Economists have shown that 50 to 80 percent of our lifetime wealth accumulation is attributable, in one way or another, to past generations. The house, the Lexus, the big bank account - these aren't just the pot of gold at the end of game, they're also the starting point for the next generation. Until we address the underlying inequalities and structures that advantage whites at the expense of other groups, we're stuck with this paradoxical idea of a colorblind society that is totally unequal by color.
David M.P. Freund
For the U.S. to function equitably as a "colorblind" society, two conditions would be required. First, all Americans - regardless of socioeconomic status or racial/ethnic background - would need to have equal opportunity to educate themselves, to pursue their professional goals, and to take care of themselves and their families. Second, all Americans would need to rise above the kinds of color-consciousness that perpetuate inequality. Yet there is little evidence, historical or contemporary, that we have met either of these requirements.
Racial minorities have been denied access to jobs, capital, housing and educational resources throughout U.S. history and, of equal importance, are regularly denied access to this day. Institutions - both public and private - have played a critical role in determining which groups have benefited most in U.S. society, often giving whites an advantage at the expense of minorities. And those institutions continue to play this role, despite laws that forbid discrimination.
They continue to play this role in part because of a related, and equally important, factor: Americans are acutely conscious of "color," although they often have very different assumptions about its implications. For example, when nonwhites talk about "race," "multiculturalism," and "colorblindness," they are much more likely to see questions of economic and political power as crucial variables. Whites, by contrast, tend to focus on the issues of "prejudice," "mutual understanding," and "personal responsibility." Indeed whites often argue that if all people could "look beyond" race, then "racial problems" would go away. This emphasis on "prejudice" and "understanding" is important. It does not, however, address the role that power relations have long played in racial conflicts in the U.S., and the role that power has played in facilitating whites' relative success in American society.
Why are there such different understandings of the "difference that race makes?" It is partly due to the fact that many Americans - especially white Americans - are deeply invested in the idea that individuals (or groups of individuals) are solely responsible for their own success or failure, and thus they attribute success or failure solely to a person's "effort," "culture," or "values." Perhaps if all Americans were to engage in a more concrete, historically informed discussion about "opportunity" and "achievement" in the U.S., including the role that institutions have played (and continue to play) in shaping people's lives, we might have a very different understanding of "race" and its implications.
Sumi P. Cho
The question, "Are we ready for a colorblind society?" assumes that colorblindness is an ideal we should strive for in the 21st century. I would argue that colorblindness generally perpetuates rather than challenges racism. Certainly there has been a long history of state-sanctioned white supremacy in this country. At one time, colorblindness may have been a legitimate strategy to counteract the formidable power of pseudo-scientific thinking that asserted the inherent biological inferiority of people of color. Today, however, advocates of colorblindness promote an understanding of racial inequality as individual "prejudice" devoid of historical context, thus preventing dialogue about more systemic kinds of oppression. The fact that colorblindness is so entrenched in court precedents, legislation, and policy making testifies to our inability to achieve racial equality while stuck in a pre-civil rights understanding of race and racism.
Perhaps opponents of racial equality embrace colorblindness because eliminating race consciousness conveniently eliminates accountability for white supremacy. Witness the latest Ward Connerly incarnation in California: the so-called "Racial Privacy Initiative" that would eliminate collection of statistics that use racial categories. This "colorblind" initiative would relieve the state of any accountability for racial disadvantage.
Are we ready for a colorblind society? Only if we are ready to deny responsibility for racism.
to me that sounds like a colorblind argument or, er, whitewashing. there are different ethnicities, colors, arguably races, etc. it has already been brought up that whites and blacks were drinking out of separate water fountains not too long ago. this country has a very recent history of racism and we haven't properly dealt with it. to just brush it off will only make it worse.
these people can say it better than me right now:
Are we ready for a colorblind society?
John Cheng
I hope we're never ready for a "colorblind" society. I don't like the expression because it sets the wrong terms for discussion when it comes to issues of race, equality, and social justice. To me, "blind" means not being able to see things, and wanting to be "blind" to color or race seems to mean wanting to ignore race or pretend its social and historical effects don't exist. When the larger question is how do we have an equitable society today, we have to be mindful of the historical and social complexities of race, not willfully ignore them. [Unless, of course, one believes that race doesn't have or hasn't had any impact, in which case there's no need for discussion.] We should strive to be color "full" rather than colorblind.
This doesn't mean, however, that we should divide people by race today. A central difficulty is the slipperiness of race and the many forms it's taken historically. To address the issue of race and equality, we must consider color in several different, seemingly contrary ways. The first is to recognize race's illusory status to avoid recapitulating racial categories and racial divides. The second is to acknowledge the real effect those categories have had and continue to have on peoples' lives and circumstances. And the third is to understand that racial divides, by their very nature, create imbalance and inequality.
These various shades of "color" must all be kept in perspective, none at the expense of the other, if we want to address seriously the question of how to be an equitable society today. There may not be a solution, but if there is one, it will almost certainly be difficult, and it will require effort, awareness, and responsibility. We can not afford to be "colorblind." We need to develop our ability to see "color" for what is, has been, and will be, so we're prepared to deal with its consequences.
Dalton Conley
On the one hand, the Civil Rights era officially ended inequality of opportunity. At the same time, civil rights legislation did nothing to address the underlying economic and social inequalities that had built up through hundreds of years of discrimination.
The one statistic that best captures the state of racial inequality in America today is wealth, or net worth. Add up everything you own, subtract all your debts, and that's your net worth. Today, the average white family has eight times the net worth of the average Black family. That difference has grown since the 1960s, and is not explained by other factors like education, earnings rates, and savings rates. It's really the legacy of racial inequality from generations past. No other measure captures the cumulative disadvantage of race, or cumulative advantage of race for Whites, than net worth or wealth.
Economists have shown that 50 to 80 percent of our lifetime wealth accumulation is attributable, in one way or another, to past generations. The house, the Lexus, the big bank account - these aren't just the pot of gold at the end of game, they're also the starting point for the next generation. Until we address the underlying inequalities and structures that advantage whites at the expense of other groups, we're stuck with this paradoxical idea of a colorblind society that is totally unequal by color.
David M.P. Freund
For the U.S. to function equitably as a "colorblind" society, two conditions would be required. First, all Americans - regardless of socioeconomic status or racial/ethnic background - would need to have equal opportunity to educate themselves, to pursue their professional goals, and to take care of themselves and their families. Second, all Americans would need to rise above the kinds of color-consciousness that perpetuate inequality. Yet there is little evidence, historical or contemporary, that we have met either of these requirements.
Racial minorities have been denied access to jobs, capital, housing and educational resources throughout U.S. history and, of equal importance, are regularly denied access to this day. Institutions - both public and private - have played a critical role in determining which groups have benefited most in U.S. society, often giving whites an advantage at the expense of minorities. And those institutions continue to play this role, despite laws that forbid discrimination.
They continue to play this role in part because of a related, and equally important, factor: Americans are acutely conscious of "color," although they often have very different assumptions about its implications. For example, when nonwhites talk about "race," "multiculturalism," and "colorblindness," they are much more likely to see questions of economic and political power as crucial variables. Whites, by contrast, tend to focus on the issues of "prejudice," "mutual understanding," and "personal responsibility." Indeed whites often argue that if all people could "look beyond" race, then "racial problems" would go away. This emphasis on "prejudice" and "understanding" is important. It does not, however, address the role that power relations have long played in racial conflicts in the U.S., and the role that power has played in facilitating whites' relative success in American society.
Why are there such different understandings of the "difference that race makes?" It is partly due to the fact that many Americans - especially white Americans - are deeply invested in the idea that individuals (or groups of individuals) are solely responsible for their own success or failure, and thus they attribute success or failure solely to a person's "effort," "culture," or "values." Perhaps if all Americans were to engage in a more concrete, historically informed discussion about "opportunity" and "achievement" in the U.S., including the role that institutions have played (and continue to play) in shaping people's lives, we might have a very different understanding of "race" and its implications.
Sumi P. Cho
The question, "Are we ready for a colorblind society?" assumes that colorblindness is an ideal we should strive for in the 21st century. I would argue that colorblindness generally perpetuates rather than challenges racism. Certainly there has been a long history of state-sanctioned white supremacy in this country. At one time, colorblindness may have been a legitimate strategy to counteract the formidable power of pseudo-scientific thinking that asserted the inherent biological inferiority of people of color. Today, however, advocates of colorblindness promote an understanding of racial inequality as individual "prejudice" devoid of historical context, thus preventing dialogue about more systemic kinds of oppression. The fact that colorblindness is so entrenched in court precedents, legislation, and policy making testifies to our inability to achieve racial equality while stuck in a pre-civil rights understanding of race and racism.
Perhaps opponents of racial equality embrace colorblindness because eliminating race consciousness conveniently eliminates accountability for white supremacy. Witness the latest Ward Connerly incarnation in California: the so-called "Racial Privacy Initiative" that would eliminate collection of statistics that use racial categories. This "colorblind" initiative would relieve the state of any accountability for racial disadvantage.
Are we ready for a colorblind society? Only if we are ready to deny responsibility for racism.
So not focusing on the color of a person's skin perpetuates racism? Yeah...needless to say I disagree. The only way we can ever live together as being truly equal as to treat each other accordingly, forget the past and actually MOVE ON. I don't know any white supremacists and certainly haven't lived my life according to their mistakes and wrong doings so why should I be held accountable for something I've never done? That's just more of the same problem, focusing on MY race because I happen to be the color as some assholes way back when!! It makes no sense at all and THAT actually helps to perpetuate racism because it IS racism. The day I start acting like a white supremacists then by all means, hold me accountable but until then you're just wrongfully focusing on the color of my skin.....And while doing so, you're ensuring we never move past our racism problem.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
So not focusing on the color of a person's skin perpetuates racism? Yeah...needless to say I disagree. The only way we can ever live together as being truly equal as to treat each other accordingly, forget the past and actually MOVE ON. I don't know any white supremacists and certainly haven't lived my life according to their mistakes and wrong doings so why should I be held accountable for something I've never done? That's just more of the same problem, focusing on MY race because I happen to be the color as some assholes way back when!! It makes no sense at all and THAT actually helps to perpetuate racism because it IS racism. The day I start acting like a white supremacists then by all means, hold me accountable but until then you're just wrongfully focusing on the color of my skin.....And while doing so, you're ensuring we never move past our racism problem.
seems you're missing the points.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
has it ever occurred to you that maybe you are missing points? naaaaaaaaah, couldn't be. how's the weather way up in that tower?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
So not focusing on the color of a person's skin perpetuates racism? Yeah...needless to say I disagree. The only way we can ever live together as being truly equal as to treat each other accordingly, forget the past and actually MOVE ON. I don't know any white supremacists and certainly haven't lived my life according to their mistakes and wrong doings so why should I be held accountable for something I've never done? That's just more of the same problem, focusing on MY race because I happen to be the color as some assholes way back when!! It makes no sense at all and THAT actually helps to perpetuate racism because it IS racism. The day I start acting like a white supremacists then by all means, hold me accountable but until then you're just wrongfully focusing on the color of my skin.....And while doing so, you're ensuring we never move past our racism problem.
is all wrong. what i posted wasn't saying any of that.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
There are not enough differences between the two parties for me to bother with either of them generally speaking. You forget I was behind Kucinich 100% and he is a Dem. It's about the issue period for me...all the other things like electability, race, party lines are things that shouldn't matter so I don't let them matter. I can't very well keep complaining about other people focusing on these things to make their votes and all the while I keep doing the same....so I stay true to myself.
Yet you imply that others aren't staying true to themselves, somehow.
Whatever you're going on about street cred speaks to your own insecurities about your vote because that's not what I was getting at. I was getting at the point of focusing on other factors outside of who's the best choice when deciding your vote and which factors do you revolve around how much you will 'settle'. I don't give a crap what anyone else thinks about me or who i vote for and I suggest you do the same....your post seems to say otherwise.
My post was in response to the question about whether my vote revolves around a person with a "D" next to his or her name. "Is it fair to say," you asked. A shorter version of my response is "No, it's not fair to say." The indie street cred remark was in response to the implied corporate sell-out status of anyone who would vote for a major party candidate that isn't Dennis Kucinich.
The bolded parts above seem a little contradictory, by the way.
Comments
I said races, so I mean races other than what he seems to view himself which is Black.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Yeah, and the point was, not everyone who calls the shots is some cackling old white guy who likes keeping down the darkies ... The world is a lot more complex.
'It will be so nice to finally get a black person in office'
'The fact that a black man is the leading contender for president shows how much progress we have made as a nation'
To me, it would be nice if we finally got a president in office who deserved it and we didn't have to settle.
And there would be progress in this nation if we didn't even see the color of Obama's skin as a factor at all but rather what he stands for and what he has done.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
i guess you missed the lilly white catholic priest who gave the sermon the other day about hillarys white entitlement... the sermon that forced obama to leave the church, it was given by a white man... so i guess the white guy was racist towards whites? :rolleyes:
that church isnt racist, it is simply telling the truth
If one of the major parties nominated someone that fit your perfect mold for president, the vast majority of the people voting for him or her would still be "settling." And even then, it might not be enough to put that person in the White House.
True - just like it's true that it's progress when one of the major political parties nominates a black man, which would be unheard of just a few years ago. What you should be saying is "there would be enough progress for me in this nation..." becasue what's happening now still fits the parameters of "progress."
Although I am ...
for the least they could possibly do
I don't judge people by race. And last I checked everyone can drink from water fountains now...and this election season is now. If I was running for president it would fucking piss me off if someone tried to bring up me being a woman as some significant factor. I would want it all to be about how I worked hard and deserved to be where I am because of who I am on the inside. I wouldn't need or want anyone feeling bad about how women were treated in the past as being part of why they support me. It would diminish all I did on my own despite gender to get there. I get the same pissed off feeling when people write off my appeal when I'm speaking as just because I'm supposedly pretty. Fuck that! I want it to be because they like what I'm saying. Don't take anything away from me like that!
First off, they wouldn't have to be perfect just better than the shit I'm seeing now. So yeah, we all settle because no one matches how we would do the job ourselves exactly. My point is just how much we chose to settle. I'm pretty sure you already knew that, though.
Focusing on someone's color of skin as having some significance is more of the same to me.
If we truly have progressed past racism, we wouldn't see one person being black as a plus over the other person who is white.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Yes there are and it's sad. I also do not like Obama, but not to that extreme.
-Reagan
Totally agree with you. I know many people who are still very racist, some being close friends!!
-Reagan
Just because it's news doesn't mean it's right. It shouldn't be an important factor in our decisions or how we look at the candidates....and that's exactly what some people are doing.
Really? Because I do remember you talking about how Kucinich and Nader are just not electable. In fact, I remember hearing it from MOST people here. I guess I must have imagined all those posts saying how they would vote for him but it's simply not viable. (as if they ever will be with attitudes like that)
Yep, some people are quite racist against white people, too.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
But, Kucinich didn't make it, and the Democratic Nominee that did is good enough that I don't feel I have to vote for Nader this time. And I said in the post you quoted that I was settling on Obama - just that it's a tolerable level of settling.
So is it fair to say then, that part of how much you're willing to settle revolves around which candidate has a D beside their name?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Exactly, and these are all ridiculous statements. I think many in the music industry think this way as well. "Yay, he's BLACK!" ...
And, despite popular belief, while the two major parties are both "moderate" parties, they are not exactly the same.
That is a frustration with me on this board... with people left of either party, all members of either party are dismissed as exactly the same.
It reminds me of a friend of mine who only listens to country music, in his opinion Pearl Jam is the exact same thing as Nickleback because they are both "alternative rock", and outside of the music that he likes.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
People can pretend that white/black/brown/yellow/whatever doesn't mean shit, that we're all enlightened enough to simply acknowledge the "best of the best"; but they're doing just that - pretending. Other people can recognize that there are problems, and complain that we should be beyond all of this - and at least I'm beyond it all - but still forget (or relish, as the case may be) that they left all the ignorant masses behind. History, however, doesn't pretend, and it doesn't acknowledge anything other than the cold, text-book facts: The United States of America never puts a non-white male in contention for President. Until now. That's progress, whether people admit it or not, or whether they think it's enough or not doesn't change that. It is progress.
So, again, "yay, he's black." Not for him. Not for the black community. Not for white guilt. Not for the Democratic Party. For the U.S.
"Yay, America."
There are not enough differences between the two parties for me to bother with either of them generally speaking. You forget I was behind Kucinich 100% and he is a Dem. It's about the issue period for me...all the other things like electability, race, party lines are things that shouldn't matter so I don't let them matter. I can't very well keep complaining about other people focusing on these things to make their votes and all the while I keep doing the same....so I stay true to myself.
Whatever you're going on about street cred speaks to your own insecurities about your vote because that's not what I was getting at. I was getting at the point of focusing on other factors outside of who's the best choice when deciding your vote and which factors do you revolve around how much you will 'settle'. I don't give a crap what anyone else thinks about me or who i vote for and I suggest you do the same....your post seems to say otherwise.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
The US is made up partially of all those groups you listed. The only way to get past focusing on the color of a person's skin is for YOU to not focus on it. It starts inside with each of us. And I for one AM over it...no pretending or relishing here....just living by what I believe. When everyone stops being so concerned with race then I'll say "Yay, America!"
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
you're a (60%) righteous babe, raindog!
cross the river to the eastside
to me that sounds like a colorblind argument or, er, whitewashing. there are different ethnicities, colors, arguably races, etc. it has already been brought up that whites and blacks were drinking out of separate water fountains not too long ago. this country has a very recent history of racism and we haven't properly dealt with it. to just brush it off will only make it worse.
these people can say it better than me right now:
Are we ready for a colorblind society?
John Cheng
I hope we're never ready for a "colorblind" society. I don't like the expression because it sets the wrong terms for discussion when it comes to issues of race, equality, and social justice. To me, "blind" means not being able to see things, and wanting to be "blind" to color or race seems to mean wanting to ignore race or pretend its social and historical effects don't exist. When the larger question is how do we have an equitable society today, we have to be mindful of the historical and social complexities of race, not willfully ignore them. [Unless, of course, one believes that race doesn't have or hasn't had any impact, in which case there's no need for discussion.] We should strive to be color "full" rather than colorblind.
This doesn't mean, however, that we should divide people by race today. A central difficulty is the slipperiness of race and the many forms it's taken historically. To address the issue of race and equality, we must consider color in several different, seemingly contrary ways. The first is to recognize race's illusory status to avoid recapitulating racial categories and racial divides. The second is to acknowledge the real effect those categories have had and continue to have on peoples' lives and circumstances. And the third is to understand that racial divides, by their very nature, create imbalance and inequality.
These various shades of "color" must all be kept in perspective, none at the expense of the other, if we want to address seriously the question of how to be an equitable society today. There may not be a solution, but if there is one, it will almost certainly be difficult, and it will require effort, awareness, and responsibility. We can not afford to be "colorblind." We need to develop our ability to see "color" for what is, has been, and will be, so we're prepared to deal with its consequences.
Dalton Conley
On the one hand, the Civil Rights era officially ended inequality of opportunity. At the same time, civil rights legislation did nothing to address the underlying economic and social inequalities that had built up through hundreds of years of discrimination.
The one statistic that best captures the state of racial inequality in America today is wealth, or net worth. Add up everything you own, subtract all your debts, and that's your net worth. Today, the average white family has eight times the net worth of the average Black family. That difference has grown since the 1960s, and is not explained by other factors like education, earnings rates, and savings rates. It's really the legacy of racial inequality from generations past. No other measure captures the cumulative disadvantage of race, or cumulative advantage of race for Whites, than net worth or wealth.
Economists have shown that 50 to 80 percent of our lifetime wealth accumulation is attributable, in one way or another, to past generations. The house, the Lexus, the big bank account - these aren't just the pot of gold at the end of game, they're also the starting point for the next generation. Until we address the underlying inequalities and structures that advantage whites at the expense of other groups, we're stuck with this paradoxical idea of a colorblind society that is totally unequal by color.
David M.P. Freund
For the U.S. to function equitably as a "colorblind" society, two conditions would be required. First, all Americans - regardless of socioeconomic status or racial/ethnic background - would need to have equal opportunity to educate themselves, to pursue their professional goals, and to take care of themselves and their families. Second, all Americans would need to rise above the kinds of color-consciousness that perpetuate inequality. Yet there is little evidence, historical or contemporary, that we have met either of these requirements.
Racial minorities have been denied access to jobs, capital, housing and educational resources throughout U.S. history and, of equal importance, are regularly denied access to this day. Institutions - both public and private - have played a critical role in determining which groups have benefited most in U.S. society, often giving whites an advantage at the expense of minorities. And those institutions continue to play this role, despite laws that forbid discrimination.
They continue to play this role in part because of a related, and equally important, factor: Americans are acutely conscious of "color," although they often have very different assumptions about its implications. For example, when nonwhites talk about "race," "multiculturalism," and "colorblindness," they are much more likely to see questions of economic and political power as crucial variables. Whites, by contrast, tend to focus on the issues of "prejudice," "mutual understanding," and "personal responsibility." Indeed whites often argue that if all people could "look beyond" race, then "racial problems" would go away. This emphasis on "prejudice" and "understanding" is important. It does not, however, address the role that power relations have long played in racial conflicts in the U.S., and the role that power has played in facilitating whites' relative success in American society.
Why are there such different understandings of the "difference that race makes?" It is partly due to the fact that many Americans - especially white Americans - are deeply invested in the idea that individuals (or groups of individuals) are solely responsible for their own success or failure, and thus they attribute success or failure solely to a person's "effort," "culture," or "values." Perhaps if all Americans were to engage in a more concrete, historically informed discussion about "opportunity" and "achievement" in the U.S., including the role that institutions have played (and continue to play) in shaping people's lives, we might have a very different understanding of "race" and its implications.
Sumi P. Cho
The question, "Are we ready for a colorblind society?" assumes that colorblindness is an ideal we should strive for in the 21st century. I would argue that colorblindness generally perpetuates rather than challenges racism. Certainly there has been a long history of state-sanctioned white supremacy in this country. At one time, colorblindness may have been a legitimate strategy to counteract the formidable power of pseudo-scientific thinking that asserted the inherent biological inferiority of people of color. Today, however, advocates of colorblindness promote an understanding of racial inequality as individual "prejudice" devoid of historical context, thus preventing dialogue about more systemic kinds of oppression. The fact that colorblindness is so entrenched in court precedents, legislation, and policy making testifies to our inability to achieve racial equality while stuck in a pre-civil rights understanding of race and racism.
Perhaps opponents of racial equality embrace colorblindness because eliminating race consciousness conveniently eliminates accountability for white supremacy. Witness the latest Ward Connerly incarnation in California: the so-called "Racial Privacy Initiative" that would eliminate collection of statistics that use racial categories. This "colorblind" initiative would relieve the state of any accountability for racial disadvantage.
Are we ready for a colorblind society? Only if we are ready to deny responsibility for racism.
http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-experts-03-01.htm
cross the river to the eastside
So not focusing on the color of a person's skin perpetuates racism?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
seems you're missing the points.
cross the river to the eastside
Then point them out.
From where I stand, you're making points out of things that don't need to be.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
has it ever occurred to you that maybe you are missing points? naaaaaaaaah, couldn't be. how's the weather way up in that tower?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
well i guess the easiest way to comply to your demands are:
this
is all wrong. what i posted wasn't saying any of that.
cross the river to the eastside
oooooooooooooooooooh, burn. smart is bad!
cross the river to the eastside
My post was in response to the question about whether my vote revolves around a person with a "D" next to his or her name. "Is it fair to say," you asked. A shorter version of my response is "No, it's not fair to say." The indie street cred remark was in response to the implied corporate sell-out status of anyone who would vote for a major party candidate that isn't Dennis Kucinich.
The bolded parts above seem a little contradictory, by the way.
Perhaps before you so confidently express yourself on how Obama views himself you should read what he has written on the topic, yes?