The first person to bring up race on thisthread called Obama a racist.
Oh, well yes, I'm sure it happens. I was generally speaking for what I usually see on this board and elsewhere. It's certainly not an absolute since there aren't any.
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 first saw this thread when it was 11 pages long, so I apologize if I repeat anything.
Like it or not, the first black (or woman, had it been the case) candidate of a major party for president is newsworthy and noteworthy. As much as many of us would like to say that race is not a factor, it is. There will be blacks voting for Obama simply because he's black (though most tend to vote "D" over "R", I'll be interested to see black turnout). There will be whites voting against him for the same reason.
I think, given the white/male makeup of our presidents and our key presidential candidates that, for a while, any black candidate in this position will generate the following:
1. People saying that it's a good thing that this is occurring. I'm not ashamed to admit that I feel this way. It does not mean that I'm just going to vote for him because of it (I will, pragmatically*). I would not vote for, say Alan Keys. But if it was Alan Keyes vs. John Edwards, I would find it equally refreshing, and vote for Edwards.
2. People saying "People only like him because he's black" and "He would not even have a chance if he was not black." This one makes me laugh. I have had conversations about this with people that feel this way and it generally leads to one conclusion, on their part...that any president should be a white male, because anyone else could only get their on the strength of their minority status. So vote white male, so as not to fall into the trap of an unqualified over-hyped minority--for SOME that is the logical conclusion of what they are saying.
3. Boneheads voting against him because they feel that the president really should be white.
4. Boneheads voting for someone simply because they are black. That's just as bad. Maybe a black candidate will tend to have more views that black voters agree with and that's fine, but, just like skinhead in point number 3 above, I hope people can have more than race as their rationale.
"race should not matter" is a genuinely nice thought...maybe someday. But until there is more representative mix of people running in the party primaries, it's going to be. Maybe in 2016, the two (and god-willing even more than two) party primary contender will look more like America's mix. But for now, it's going to remain on the forefront.
And I think we all know that McCain is going to win and win huge. So next time someone who is not a white male runs, the same ol' shit is going to happen. Some people will find it refreshing, others will say it's over hype. Get used to it.
PS...have not been here in a while. LOVE the spell check.
I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
I first saw this thread when it was 11 pages long, so I apologize if I repeat anything.
Like it or not, the first black (or woman, had it been the case) candidate of a major party for president is newsworthy and noteworthy. As much as many of us would like to say that race is not a factor, it is. There will be blacks voting for Obama simply because he's black (though most tend to vote "D" over "R", I'll be interested to see black turnout). There will be whites voting against him for the same reason.
I think, given the white/male makeup of our presidents and our key presidential candidates that, for a while, any black candidate in this position will generate the following:
1. People saying that it's a good thing that this is occurring. I'm not ashamed to admit that I feel this way. It does not mean that I'm just going to vote for him because of it (I will, pragmatically*). I would not vote for, say Alan Keys. But if it was Alan Keyes vs. John Edwards, I would find it equally refreshing, and vote for Edwards.
2. People saying "People only like him because he's black" and "He would not even have a chance if he was not black." This one makes me laugh. I have had conversations about this with people that feel this way and it generally leads to one conclusion, on their part...that any president should be a white male, because anyone else could only get their on the strength of their minority status. So vote white male, so as not to fall into the trap of an unqualified over-hyped minority--for SOME that is the logical conclusion of what they are saying.
3. Boneheads voting against him because they feel that the president really should be white.
4. Boneheads voting for someone simply because they are black. That's just as bad. Maybe a black candidate will tend to have more views that black voters agree with and that's fine, but, just like skinhead in point number 3 above, I hope people can have more than race as their rationale.
"race should not matter" is a genuinely nice thought...maybe someday. But until there is more representative mix of people running in the party primaries, it's going to be. Maybe in 2016, the two (and god-willing even more than two) party primary contender will look more like America's mix. But for now, it's going to remain on the forefront.
And I think we all know that McCain is going to win and win huge. So next time someone who is not a white male runs, the same ol' shit is going to happen. Some people will find it refreshing, others will say it's over hype. Get used to it.
PS...have not been here in a while. LOVE the spell check.
I'm not voting for Obama because he is undeserving. So maybe if there was some kind of difference between he and Hillary to explain why one is considered a 'bitch who is nothing more than a corrupt politician' and the other is a 'breath of fresh air who is going to usher in all this change.' then I wouldn't think this isn't based partially on race and partially on Obama's ability to sell himself through speeches and charisma, then I would think differently. But I am not seeing it. On paper, they both look the same, basically the same plans, the same support they throw out there to various groups/industries, the same history of pandering and bad voting records.....You tell me what the difference between them was so I can see what the support is being based on. I've been quite clear in why I wouldn't support him over Nader. Also there's not much difference between Obama and McCain, either
And as long as we focus on race as being an issue, it will always be one. Your #2 takes a leap in judgment and logic. Just because someone feels that Obama doesn't stand out as some great figure of hope and change and his platform seems quite lacking/more of the same old to some of us does not mean that every person who isn't white that ever runs is going to be looked at in the same manner. The fact is many of us aren't seeing much in Obama to be excited about or even explain the excitement others have for him. He's just more of the same. If he was running with Kucinich's or Nader's platform then I would understand it or even something less left than those examples but still minus the saber rattling towards Iran, the unwaivering support claimed for Israel, the shady advisors he has picked and the poor voting record....then I might understand the support and praise he is getting. But as it stands, I just do not see it. I don't think anyone would come to the ridiculous conclusion that you have painted here that we should always vote white male so as not to fall in the the trap of supporting an over hyped candidate. That's just some shit you've pulled out of your ass or you've been talking to morons. I support people who deserve my support....regardless of race.
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
No one has came close to saying racism is over in this country and we shouldn't address the problems of it anymore....just the opposite, actually.
But I do disagree that we should focus on the color of everyone's skin to further
progress past racism and disagree that programs like AA are part of the solution.
Also, what is white paranoia and what did that mean?
Well, now we're talking in circles so i guess its time for me to get out of this one. The fact is, once the conversation turns to the constant insistence that "we've made progress, it isn't the same as 40 years ago...", then the conversation stalls. We seem to be stuck in a revolving door, here. You may be content to set up camp right where we are on the journey towards social equality. Good luck with that. i'm moving forward.
As far as my comments on what i call "white paranoia", i think what i see in white attitudes toward programs such as AA is just that. Paranoia. There is alot of screaming about good white folks losing jobs to underqualified Blacks simply because they are black when, in truth, that simply isn't how AA works. "Ahhhhhhhhhhhhgh! Blacks are stealing our jobs! Whites are being discriminated against! i didn't get that job just because i'm white". Paranoia. That isn't what happens. That isn't how it works.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Well, now we're talking in circles so i guess its time for me to get out of this one. The fact is, once the conversation turns to the constant insistence that "we've made progress, it isn't the same as 40 years ago...", then the conversation stalls. We seem to be stuck in a revolving door, here. You may be content to set up camp right where we are on the journey towards social equality. Good luck with that. i'm moving forward.
Once again, I haven't said anything about not continuing the process of moving forward in regards to the race issue. I simply disagree with what constitutes as moving forward.
As far as my comments on what i call "white paranoia", i think what i see in white attitudes toward programs such as AA is just that. Paranoia. There is alot of screaming about good white folks losing jobs to underqualified Blacks simply because they are black when, in truth, that simply isn't how AA works. "Ahhhhhhhhhhhhgh! Blacks are stealing our jobs! Whites are being discriminated against! i didn't get that job just because i'm white". Paranoia. That isn't what happens. That isn't how it works.
I'm not paranoid about anyone 'stealing' jobs from me.
Again, how does AA work if not basing decisions on race?
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
Once again, I haven't said anything about not continuing the process of moving forward in regards to the race issue. I simply disagree with what constitutes as moving forward.
I'm not paranoid about anyone 'stealing' jobs from me.
Again, how does AA work if not basing decisions on race?
i've already explained, if not very exact or eloquently why AA does not equal reverse racism.
As far as the general conversation is concerned, you have really offered nothing other than "we have made progress" and "we shouldn't focus on race". Thats great. i don't disagree. Our society doesn't work that way, however, regardless of how badly you or i wish it would. It sounds alot to me like "accept the progress we have made, and ignore the problems that still very much exist". Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Again, how does AA work if not basing decisions on race?
Here is one link i found. i didn't select this link because of any other reason than i think it answers some general questions rather well. i am in no way affiliated with Boise State University. Just happened upon this page and thought it to be helpful in explaining things a bit.
Keep in mind that a protected classes under AA law include more than race. Gender, age, religious affiliation, etc. are also protected.
So maybe if there was some kind of difference between he and Hillary to explain why one is considered a 'bitch who is nothing more than a corrupt politician' and the other is a 'breath of fresh air who is going to usher in all this change.' then I wouldn't think this isn't based partially on race and partially on Obama's ability to sell himself through speeches and charisma, then I would think differently. But I am not seeing it. On paper, they both look the same, basically the same plans, the same support they throw out there to various groups/industries, the same history of pandering and bad voting records.....You tell me what the difference between them was so I can see what the support is being based on. I've been quite clear in why I wouldn't support him over Nader. Also there's not much difference between Obama and McCain, either
Like me, you have become quite disheartened by the Democratic Party. Can't blame you. But you have ripped into Obama 10 times as much as any democrat and probably more than any republican, outside of perhaps W. I guess that must mean you particularly dislike Obama for being black. Wait. Maybe it's not that simple. (and please recognize my point and that I am not actually accusing you of this). Perhaps your extra disdain is built up frustration with the "left" party. Or perhaps its blowback to the Obamamania. And perhaps there are a lot of factors to the "bitch" Hillary and the "breath of air" Obama. Let's start with Hillary. Hillary's been among the most hated people in America since well before any of us had ever heard of Obama. "She wants to be first lady, is not June Cleaver and can read AND write! The nerve." I frankly think that as deserving as she is of some criticism (i.e. being pro-war), the hatred went overboard and was unfair. I also think it would have happened every bit as much had she been running against Edwards. Maybe it was not "reverse racism" as much as it was "traditional sexism." Now there's Obama. You already got into it a bit by discussing his charisma, personality, etc. Don't forget, this is a country that actually voted for a recovering alcoholic because he'd be a good guy to have a beer with. I think it's quite plausible that a young, energizing guy would sweep America. "Change." Sure it's backed up by almost nothing, but he understands that voters don't study in soundbytes much longer. Bush won the same electorate over with an arrogant smirk and a down home chuckle. Was it because he was white? Well no, it's hard to make that assertion when he shared that with everyone. Now we have one guy who has a bandwagon. Like most people, you recognize and think about race and you've come to the same conclusion that Rush did about Donovan McNabb...Overhyped because he's black. Imagine how much the Reagan landslide would have been if he'd been black. Or how popular Brett Favre would be. Sure there are people on the Obama because he's black. And there are plenty of haters for the same reason. But ultimately the winner of elections (McCain in a landslide) and primaries (Obama in a tight won, guess Hillary would have won if he was white), should come from approximately the same reasons as always. Unfortunately, those reasons tend to suck anyway. Exhibit A: 2000 and 2004.
So that's the difference. Are they roughly the same? Yes. Why do I prefer Obama? Because I think Hillary is about Hillary. Bush did it to make money for his friends. Hillary for the power. Obama? I have not decided why. Maybe the power. But there is a part of me that believes that he actually wants to make the world a better place.
At any rate, I'm doing something that you have no tolerance for. I'm voting for a black man (kidding. Hey, this is supposed to be fun). I'm voting for Obama even though I would definately prefer Nader's presidency. Is it white guilt? No. It's pragmatism. I feel there is some difference between Obama and McCain. Enough that I know I'll be pulling for Obama come election night. While we need more parties and the Dems and GOP are corrupted by nearly identical pocket-liners, I know this: Boy do I wish Gore had won in 2000.
And as long as we focus on race as being an issue, it will always be one. Your #2 takes a leap in judgment and logic. Just because someone feels that Obama doesn't stand out as some great figure of hope and change and his platform seems quite lacking/more of the same old to some of us does not mean that every person who isn't white that ever runs is going to be looked at in the same manner. The fact is many of us aren't seeing much in Obama to be excited about or even explain the excitement others have for him. He's just more of the same. If he was running with Kucinich's or Nader's platform then I would understand it or even something less left than those examples but still minus the saber rattling towards Iran, the unwaivering support claimed for Israel, the shady advisors he has picked and the poor voting record....then I might understand the support and praise he is getting. But as it stands, I just do not see it. I don't think anyone would come to the ridiculous conclusion that you have painted here that we should always vote white male so as not to fall in the the trap of supporting an over hyped candidate. That's just some shit you've pulled out of your ass or you've been talking to morons. I support people who deserve my support....regardless of race.
My number 2 is not out of my ass in my opinion. If Obama is over-hyped because of race, then it stands to reason that any black candidate in these times would get extra hype and attention because of race. Then we can always say "sure, but would we even care about him if he was just another white guy?"
Your point about his ho-hum Democratic line of BS is taken and if he was more like Kucinich then I'd REALLY be excited. As it is, there is some lesser of two evils quality to my vote.
John McCain...potentially the greatest job ever lost to white guilt. (Ok, no chance. McCain will win).
I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
Comments
Oh, well yes, I'm sure it happens. I was generally speaking for what I usually see on this board and elsewhere. It's certainly not an absolute since there aren't any.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Like it or not, the first black (or woman, had it been the case) candidate of a major party for president is newsworthy and noteworthy. As much as many of us would like to say that race is not a factor, it is. There will be blacks voting for Obama simply because he's black (though most tend to vote "D" over "R", I'll be interested to see black turnout). There will be whites voting against him for the same reason.
I think, given the white/male makeup of our presidents and our key presidential candidates that, for a while, any black candidate in this position will generate the following:
1. People saying that it's a good thing that this is occurring. I'm not ashamed to admit that I feel this way. It does not mean that I'm just going to vote for him because of it (I will, pragmatically*). I would not vote for, say Alan Keys. But if it was Alan Keyes vs. John Edwards, I would find it equally refreshing, and vote for Edwards.
2. People saying "People only like him because he's black" and "He would not even have a chance if he was not black." This one makes me laugh. I have had conversations about this with people that feel this way and it generally leads to one conclusion, on their part...that any president should be a white male, because anyone else could only get their on the strength of their minority status. So vote white male, so as not to fall into the trap of an unqualified over-hyped minority--for SOME that is the logical conclusion of what they are saying.
3. Boneheads voting against him because they feel that the president really should be white.
4. Boneheads voting for someone simply because they are black. That's just as bad. Maybe a black candidate will tend to have more views that black voters agree with and that's fine, but, just like skinhead in point number 3 above, I hope people can have more than race as their rationale.
"race should not matter" is a genuinely nice thought...maybe someday. But until there is more representative mix of people running in the party primaries, it's going to be. Maybe in 2016, the two (and god-willing even more than two) party primary contender will look more like America's mix. But for now, it's going to remain on the forefront.
And I think we all know that McCain is going to win and win huge. So next time someone who is not a white male runs, the same ol' shit is going to happen. Some people will find it refreshing, others will say it's over hype. Get used to it.
PS...have not been here in a while. LOVE the spell check.
I'm not voting for Obama because he is undeserving. So maybe if there was some kind of difference between he and Hillary to explain why one is considered a 'bitch who is nothing more than a corrupt politician' and the other is a 'breath of fresh air who is going to usher in all this change.' then I wouldn't think this isn't based partially on race and partially on Obama's ability to sell himself through speeches and charisma, then I would think differently. But I am not seeing it. On paper, they both look the same, basically the same plans, the same support they throw out there to various groups/industries, the same history of pandering and bad voting records.....You tell me what the difference between them was so I can see what the support is being based on. I've been quite clear in why I wouldn't support him over Nader. Also there's not much difference between Obama and McCain, either
And as long as we focus on race as being an issue, it will always be one. Your #2 takes a leap in judgment and logic. Just because someone feels that Obama doesn't stand out as some great figure of hope and change and his platform seems quite lacking/more of the same old to some of us does not mean that every person who isn't white that ever runs is going to be looked at in the same manner. The fact is many of us aren't seeing much in Obama to be excited about or even explain the excitement others have for him. He's just more of the same. If he was running with Kucinich's or Nader's platform then I would understand it or even something less left than those examples but still minus the saber rattling towards Iran, the unwaivering support claimed for Israel, the shady advisors he has picked and the poor voting record....then I might understand the support and praise he is getting. But as it stands, I just do not see it. I don't think anyone would come to the ridiculous conclusion that you have painted here that we should always vote white male so as not to fall in the the trap of supporting an over hyped candidate. That's just some shit you've pulled out of your ass or you've been talking to morons. I support people who deserve my support....regardless of race.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Well, now we're talking in circles so i guess its time for me to get out of this one. The fact is, once the conversation turns to the constant insistence that "we've made progress, it isn't the same as 40 years ago...", then the conversation stalls. We seem to be stuck in a revolving door, here. You may be content to set up camp right where we are on the journey towards social equality. Good luck with that. i'm moving forward.
As far as my comments on what i call "white paranoia", i think what i see in white attitudes toward programs such as AA is just that. Paranoia. There is alot of screaming about good white folks losing jobs to underqualified Blacks simply because they are black when, in truth, that simply isn't how AA works. "Ahhhhhhhhhhhhgh! Blacks are stealing our jobs! Whites are being discriminated against! i didn't get that job just because i'm white". Paranoia. That isn't what happens. That isn't how it works.
Once again, I haven't said anything about not continuing the process of moving forward in regards to the race issue. I simply disagree with what constitutes as moving forward.
I'm not paranoid about anyone 'stealing' jobs from me.
Again, how does AA work if not basing decisions on race?
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 already explained, if not very exact or eloquently why AA does not equal reverse racism.
As far as the general conversation is concerned, you have really offered nothing other than "we have made progress" and "we shouldn't focus on race". Thats great. i don't disagree. Our society doesn't work that way, however, regardless of how badly you or i wish it would. It sounds alot to me like "accept the progress we have made, and ignore the problems that still very much exist". Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away.
Here is one link i found. i didn't select this link because of any other reason than i think it answers some general questions rather well. i am in no way affiliated with Boise State University. Just happened upon this page and thought it to be helpful in explaining things a bit.
Keep in mind that a protected classes under AA law include more than race. Gender, age, religious affiliation, etc. are also protected.
http://hrs.boisestate.edu/eeoaa/faq.shtml
Like me, you have become quite disheartened by the Democratic Party. Can't blame you. But you have ripped into Obama 10 times as much as any democrat and probably more than any republican, outside of perhaps W. I guess that must mean you particularly dislike Obama for being black. Wait. Maybe it's not that simple. (and please recognize my point and that I am not actually accusing you of this). Perhaps your extra disdain is built up frustration with the "left" party. Or perhaps its blowback to the Obamamania. And perhaps there are a lot of factors to the "bitch" Hillary and the "breath of air" Obama. Let's start with Hillary. Hillary's been among the most hated people in America since well before any of us had ever heard of Obama. "She wants to be first lady, is not June Cleaver and can read AND write! The nerve." I frankly think that as deserving as she is of some criticism (i.e. being pro-war), the hatred went overboard and was unfair. I also think it would have happened every bit as much had she been running against Edwards. Maybe it was not "reverse racism" as much as it was "traditional sexism." Now there's Obama. You already got into it a bit by discussing his charisma, personality, etc. Don't forget, this is a country that actually voted for a recovering alcoholic because he'd be a good guy to have a beer with. I think it's quite plausible that a young, energizing guy would sweep America. "Change." Sure it's backed up by almost nothing, but he understands that voters don't study in soundbytes much longer. Bush won the same electorate over with an arrogant smirk and a down home chuckle. Was it because he was white? Well no, it's hard to make that assertion when he shared that with everyone. Now we have one guy who has a bandwagon. Like most people, you recognize and think about race and you've come to the same conclusion that Rush did about Donovan McNabb...Overhyped because he's black. Imagine how much the Reagan landslide would have been if he'd been black. Or how popular Brett Favre would be. Sure there are people on the Obama because he's black. And there are plenty of haters for the same reason. But ultimately the winner of elections (McCain in a landslide) and primaries (Obama in a tight won, guess Hillary would have won if he was white), should come from approximately the same reasons as always. Unfortunately, those reasons tend to suck anyway. Exhibit A: 2000 and 2004.
So that's the difference. Are they roughly the same? Yes. Why do I prefer Obama? Because I think Hillary is about Hillary. Bush did it to make money for his friends. Hillary for the power. Obama? I have not decided why. Maybe the power. But there is a part of me that believes that he actually wants to make the world a better place.
At any rate, I'm doing something that you have no tolerance for. I'm voting for a black man (kidding. Hey, this is supposed to be fun). I'm voting for Obama even though I would definately prefer Nader's presidency. Is it white guilt? No. It's pragmatism. I feel there is some difference between Obama and McCain. Enough that I know I'll be pulling for Obama come election night. While we need more parties and the Dems and GOP are corrupted by nearly identical pocket-liners, I know this: Boy do I wish Gore had won in 2000.
My number 2 is not out of my ass in my opinion. If Obama is over-hyped because of race, then it stands to reason that any black candidate in these times would get extra hype and attention because of race. Then we can always say "sure, but would we even care about him if he was just another white guy?"
Your point about his ho-hum Democratic line of BS is taken and if he was more like Kucinich then I'd REALLY be excited. As it is, there is some lesser of two evils quality to my vote.
John McCain...potentially the greatest job ever lost to white guilt. (Ok, no chance. McCain will win).