Threat against Obama [Archive]

kimbyj

05-03-2007, 10:59 PM

You're kidding me right? As a woman of color living in the NYC area I am very much aware of color being a HUGE issue for voters. When I see some facts to the contrary then I'll believe it.

From CNN:
I knew the crowds were large ... but some of the other information given to us, unfortunately I think, raised a concern among many of [Obama's] friends," Durbin said.

"Unfortunately, some of the information we found was racially motivated. It is a sad reality in this day and age that Mr. Obama's African-American heritage is a cause for very violent and hatred, hated reactions among some people."

Durbin would not elaborate. "I've been advised not to talk about any specific security problems or any threats," he said. He also would not say how he received the information, only that it was from "credible sources."

ETA: And, let's not forget that Catholic President (bless his soul) and his brother were both killed due to hatred. Was that about their names too?

Niobe

05-03-2007, 11:05 PM

Delta

05-03-2007, 11:07 PM

You're kidding me right? As a woman of color living in the NYC area I am very much aware of color being a HUGE issue for voters. When I see some facts to the contrary then I'll believe it.No facts here, it's just my feeling about things. I guess my sense is that there are a few crazies out there who have a problem with him being black (thus the threats, etc), but I don't feel like it's a huge issue for most (or many) of the actual voters. KWIM?

Fear about the safety of their family was the biggest obstacle Obama's wife had to overcome before he entered.

Delta

05-03-2007, 11:12 PM

Here is a relevant Gallup Poll: http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26611

IrishEyes

05-04-2007, 06:31 AM

From wikipedia:

Congress passed legislation in 1994 stating that presidents elected to office after January 1, 1997, will receive Secret Service protection for 10 years after leaving office. Individuals elected to office prior to January 1, 1997, will continue to receive lifetime protection (Treasury Department Appropriations Act, 1995: Public Law 103-329).

Prior to the 2008 Presidential election, the Secret Service generally protected major candidates over the 120 days preceding an election.

It's a shame, but I'm sure Obama has probably gotten threats (though Hillary probably gets her fair share of hate mail). I personally have no issue with race or gender as far as who I'd vote for President (actually, I'm pretty sick of seeing just old white guys, like last night's Republican debate line-up). However, even recently, I've overheard hateful words come out of the mouths of young people that makes me realize racism might not disappear any time soon...

jnettie

05-04-2007, 09:34 AM

So am I the only person who had to go to wikipedia to look up Obama's middle name? I'm sure I've seen it before (hardly the first time I've been to his wikipedia entry), but it never made an impact on my brain. Are people really so stupid and ignorant to dislike him based on his middle name? That's so absurd.

Actually, now that I think about it, I *can* totally believe people are that stupid and ignorant. I had a classmate with the last name of Hussein growing up and some kids were pretty awful to him during the Gulf War. Of course, we were 11 at the time, but some people just never mature. :rolleyes:

AFAIK, Hussein is a very common Middle Eastern/African Muslim name. It's like Smith. Couple this with the fact that Obama went to a Muslim school when he was a kid (his family lived in Indonesian for a few years) and you get to watch the American people go nuts. Stupid.

imagirliegirl

05-04-2007, 10:31 AM

Isn't this the reason why Colin Powell didn't want to run for President? Didn't he say that his wife was scared for his safety?

I thought I heard something like that as well. That he was fearful of assassination because of his color.

Are people really so stupid and ignorant to dislike him based on his middle name?

They sure are. People are idiots.

msnicolea

05-04-2007, 10:32 AM

phoenics

05-04-2007, 11:57 AM

People have their heads up their asses if they don't believe race is a HUGE obstacle for Obama, and that it puts his life at risk. Hate crimes and membership in neo-nazi type organzaitions are spiking right now--violence against Latinos, in particular, is on the rise.

I feel sickto my stomach.

THANK YOU! I'm so glad that you posted this because - honestly - it shocks me that some posters are so able to blind themselves to these facts.

I think the problem is that so many think that when racism happens, it's isolated - and it's just one or two sick individuals... but it really isn't... and racism abounds... it's just that some people never see it because they are only looking for the 'blatant' in your face racism - and even then, they're falling all over themselves to explain even those cases away.

I get it that some people just think minorities are paranoid or imagining things, but honestly... please pull your head up out of the sand.

chrisinluv

05-04-2007, 12:10 PM

He's a terrist! Plain and simple. These good honest Amerkins is only exercisin they right to free speech, tote guns, and stomp out the terrists wherever they are.

(( the above IS a joke, and YES I did watch an episode of Beverly Hillbillys last week so I am confident that all spelling is correct. But what's up with all these red squiggly lines?))

mgrace

05-04-2007, 02:45 PM

Delta

05-04-2007, 02:50 PM

msnicolea and phoenics - I'm going to assume your comments were directed at me? I think you are reading things into my posts.

1) I never said race wasn't an obstacle.
2) I never said his race didn't put his life at risk (in fact, I mentioned that their safety was his wife's biggest concern.)
3) I don't agree, however, with the assertion that race is a huge issue with most voters.
4) I also believe that his middle name is just as, if not more than, an issue than his race when it comes to (close-minded and crazy) people not wanting to support him and possibly even threatening him.

Refer also to the poll I posted. It directly contradicts what kimbyj said in the initial post that I responded to. Although, I still think it's disturbing that the numbers aren't even higher.

I don't understand why people think I have my head up my ass or in the sand because I don't agree that America isn't ready for a black president. :confused:

phoenics

05-04-2007, 04:28 PM

I don't understand why people think I have my head up my ass or in the sand because I don't agree that America isn't ready for a black president. :confused:

Whoa - who said that? Not one of us did.

I think you missed the point entirely. What we're getting at is the complete 'shock and dismay' that has been displayed at the mere mention that it's very likely that the reason why Obama got the threat is due to his race. It's almost as though some are so afraid of the 'r' word that the mere mention of it sends people scrambling to come up with any *other* reason just so the idea that 'race' being an issue fior Obama will just go away.

As if that will make racism go away or something.

It's that scrambling that bothers me the most.

I personally read the article about Colin Powell from his wife - she talked about what happened to other leaders you *could* distinguish by their 'firstness' (first Catholic President, etc..) and then she pointed at her husband and said, 'what do you think they'd do to HIM?' when asked if she wanted her husband to run for President.

I don't know if America is ready for a black president - I hope it is, but I definitely believe that a lot of Americans aren't ready for one. We're still a nation of stereotypes to be honest.

phoenics

05-04-2007, 04:35 PM

Refer also to the poll I posted. It directly contradicts what kimbyj said in the initial post that I responded to. Although, I still think it's disturbing that the numbers aren't even higher.

Because I do a lot of experiential research, there is such a thing as a pitchfork/halo effect - I honestly do not believe that most people would really admit that they wouldn't vote for someone based on race. They'd come up with another 'reason' to do so.

And as the recent presidential election showed, those polls mean squat - all of the exit polls predicted Kerry would win and poof - he lost.

Don't get me started on polls.

I think you'd need another method of evaluation to get a real answer to that question - it's sort of like asking someone in a heavily regulated field if a piece of software found something that they missed (like a fraud)... yeah - like an auditor would actually ADMIT that they missed a fraud that a piece of software found instead.

But that's not really what msnicolea and I were addressing, imo. I was simply addressing the scrambling to explain away the SS protection as arising from his middle name - as if his race couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.

Delta

05-04-2007, 04:37 PM

What we're getting at is the complete 'shock and dismay' that has been displayed at the mere mention that it's very likely that the reason why Obama got the threat is due to his race.The shock and dismay displayed by whom? Me? If so, please show me.

But that's not really what msnicolea and I were addressing, imo. I was simply addressing the scrambling to explain away the SS protection as arising from his middle name - as if his race couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.Again, can you show me?

In my first post I talk about his middle name being a bigger obstacle (to winning) for him as opposed to his race. I said nothing about the reason for his SS protection.

Delta

05-04-2007, 04:46 PM

And as the recent presidential election showed, those polls mean squat - all of the exit polls predicted Kerry would win and poof - he lost.
Exit polls are entirely and completely different than the type of poll that I posted.

Although, I understand what you are saying about people not wanting to admit in a poll they won't vote for someone based on race. I still believe, however, that America (general America) is ready for a black president even if there are racist Americans who are not.

wendalah

05-04-2007, 06:18 PM

Insofar as whether America is ready for a black president:

This is my honest, layman's opinion: I think the USA will elect a male president of color before it will elect a female president.

That's not to say I don't think there are obstacles to candidates of color (male or not). I say "of color" because I think issues will arise in the case of any minority. I also think there would be issues with religious minorities as well as racial ones. It's stupid to think *something* won't arise, because there are a lot of twits out there with axes to grind.

But, that said, I still think America will vote for a man in any configuration before it will elect a woman. Not really happy about any of this, just what I think.

pocahontas

05-04-2007, 06:52 PM

because there are a lot of twits out there with axes to grind.
Would one of those "twits" be Rush Limbaugh because...did anyone see/hear the "Obama the Magic Negro" song he supposedly made (to the tune of "Puff the Magic Dragon"). Speaking of people with their heads up their asses...gawd is he ever one. :rolleyes:

wendalah

05-04-2007, 07:12 PM

Uh, yeah, I'd agree Rush Limbaugh is a twit, at the very least.

Niobe

05-04-2007, 11:13 PM

pocahontas

05-06-2007, 02:19 PM

ITA with wendalah - America, as much racism as is still present, is probably far more likely to elect a minority-race man than a woman of any race.

And Rush Limbaugh is certainly a twit, among many other things. I still want to know why the whole "Barack, the Magic Negro" crap didn't earn him the same fate as Imus. :mad:
Great minds think alike...when I heard about it I thought the same.exact.thing. :mad: And what's worse is I figured if you punish one yet let another spew such !@#$%^&* that is a terrible message to send and opens a whole 'nother can of worms.

philnikki

05-07-2007, 11:22 AM

I think its terrible that anyone would target any of the candidates in this way. I whole-heartedly disagree with Barack on a number of issues, but think its great he is running for president! Good for him. I won't vote for him because of his positions,but his skin color and religion have zero to do with it.

And FWIW, I am not some crazed Rush devotee or anything, but as a republican, I do tend to agree with him from time to time and find his show entertaining (as do many, many other people, so don't flame me for listening to him). As a frequent listener, I heard the evolution of the "magic negro" thing, and it frustrates me to no end to see this come up on blog after blog. Rush was poking fun at at LA Times article written by David Ehrenstein who first brought up the term with respect to Obama. He thought it was comical that a liberal was speaking in such a way to another liberal, hence the parody. Every.Single.Time. he mentioned the term, he prefaced it by stating who said it to begin with.

Sorry for taking this thread off track brieflu - but it seriously annoys me to no end how this has been misrepresented. The parody might have been distasteful in your opinion, but I think that the blame should be equally placed on the man who intially wrote the article, but that never gets brought up.

I am citing Wikipedia for time's sake, but I am sure that there are better sites out there what would also concur the same way.

On March 19, 2007, Los Angeles Times columnist David Ehrenstein wrote: "But it's clear that Obama also is running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination — the 'Magic Negro.'"[10] Ehrenstein, himself an African-American, detailed the reasons he believes Senator Obama fits the template in his opinion column. The column received world-wide attention and discussion, especially in the news media and in talk radio. Rush Limbaugh aired a song parody called "Barack, the Magic Negro", sung by Paul Shanklin impersonating Al Sharpton and based on the Peter, Paul, and Mary song "Puff, the Magic Dragon". Limbaugh also referred to the 2008 presidential candidate as the "magic negro" several times during his radio broadcast, each time prefacing the reference by explaining that the title came from Ehrenstein and/or the LA Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_negro).

cocoa_femme

05-07-2007, 12:00 PM

Hey, Nikki (you crazed Rush devotee ;) :p):

While I do have many issues with Rush...I get that he was just referencing an article written by David Ehrenstein. But, I do think that by him repeating it, and making a song about it - he's just perpetuating the problem. I agree, though, Ehrenstein should be called to the carpet for his "Magic Negro" comment.

msnicolea

05-07-2007, 12:12 PM

The fact that Rush didn't make it up doesn't make it less offensive or him any less culpable. I'm quite sure Don Imus didn't make-up the phrase "nappy headed hos."

philnikki

05-07-2007, 12:35 PM

msnicolea - I did state in my post that I was aware that people would think that the parody was offensive. Just pointing out that the whole situation has been misrepresented, and no one is saying that the LA Times should fire David Ehrenstein. FWIW, I think the statements by all involved are horrendous. Like I said, I am not disagreeing with you, just wanted to point out that there are others out there who are perpetuating this crap, not just the big-fat-white-male-conservatives.

kimbyj

05-07-2007, 02:20 PM

I can't believe that some posters don't think race is an issue - especially in the election of the President of the USA. (No, it shouldn't be. No, I don't want it to be, but IT IS!).

I honestly feel "over it" & disgusted to have to explain why it is. Then I think about people like Kweisi Mfume who once told me something along the lines of, "If you feel tired of having to explain racism then think about the people who died for you and gave you the freedom to explain and you'll get over your tiredness real quick." Well reading some things here make me feel tired and disappointed that the dreams of a person like Martin Luther King Jr. have not only NOT been fully achieved but for now some people think we have actually arrived at the mountain top (well, I guess always knew that to be true - now I can put the "faces with a name".

***sigh***

Delta

05-07-2007, 02:33 PM

I'm quite sure Don Imus didn't make-up the phrase "nappy headed hos."Actually, I think he did. ;)

I can't believe that some posters don't think race is an issue - especially in the election of the President of the USA. (No, it shouldn't be. No, I don't want it to be, but IT IS!).Which posters? Can I assume again that you mean me? Where did I ever say race is not an issue??????

(PSA for everyone in this thread - next time just refer to me and not in generalities.)

I certainly think that Obama's race plays a part in this election (good and bad, actually.) But I honestly, honestly do not think that means that America isn't ready for a black president, and I think Obama has just as good of a chace as anyone to win. I'd venture to say that his inexperience will hurt him the most (even more than his race and his middle name.) That doesn't mean I think his race isn't an issue or an obstacle. I mean, I absolutely agree that racism is alive and well in America.

Am I making any sense? I feel like I'm not getting through here.

Adaya

05-07-2007, 02:54 PM

I honestly feel "over it" & disgusted to have to explain why it is. Then I think about people like Kweisi Mfume who once told me something along the lines of, "If you feel tired of having to explain racism then think about the people who died for you and gave you the freedom to explain and you'll get over your tiredness real quick." Well reading some things here make me feel tired and disappointed that the dreams of a person like Martin Luther King Jr. have not only NOT been fully achieved but for now some people think we have actually arrived at the mountain top (well, I guess always knew that to be true - now I can put the "faces with a name".

***sigh***

Thanks for posting that. I really needed to read that. I hope you don't mind me printing that quote from Kweisi Mfume. The very reason why I have just given up on posting in threads dealing with race and similar issues is because I'm just tired of feeling like I'm going around in circles and getting nowhere, especially with the same people. But after reading that, I feel a bit renewed. Thanks for sharing that. :)

eta: Just read this interesting piece about CBS pulling the plug on racist online postings about Obama. Obama Posts (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/05/04/publiceye/entry2761854.shtml)

msnicolea

05-07-2007, 03:19 PM

Delta, while I appreciate your observations, I think you are grossly underestimating the amount and degree of racism that exists in this country--that's all. Sure--gender is an issue, too--but to nowhere near the degree race is.

kimbyj

05-07-2007, 03:26 PM

No, Delta - to me you are not making sense...but you are not the only one here I can say that about. I can only speak for myself (but I am also quite sure others feel this way) that when and if I want to address you or anyone else specifically I will. Clearly, it's not just about you.

Adaya I hear you, I feel you and today I just sit here shaking my head in sadness. Like I tell my DH, it's one thing to know in general how people think/feel etc. but when I actually encounter it I am always taken aback for a short while. My parents came to this country for a better life and while my brother and I have enjoyed the fruits of their labor (and the many who came before them) I know now more than ever before, with no uncertainty, that this job has a long way to go. So, tomorrow I will rise up and get back to work!!! I have a feeling that with this election membership in certain organizations will go up (NAACP, NOW, etc.).

MLA

05-07-2007, 03:36 PM

I think you are grossly underestimating the amount and degree of racism that exists in this country--that's all. Sure--gender is an issue, too--but to nowhere near the degree race is.

I think you're right about how we, as a society, underestimate the amount of racism in this country -- I became much more aware of the racial "divide" when I moved to the South. It was so strange to me that all of the menial jobs seemed to be filled with African Americans. I was accustomed in Los Angeles to those positions (i.e. bus boys, fast food workers, etc) being filled by pretty recent immigrants. And even though I didn't like the idea that it was mainly people from Mexico doing the menial labor, I could make myself feel okay about it by thinking about how they were new immigrants and that in a generation or two their families would be much better established and they'd be able to get better work. That made it somehow okay to me. Moving to NC has really opened my eyes. African Americans, as a whole, are still suffering today from what happened so many years ago. Low-end jobs in the South aren't filled with African Americans because they're new to the country and working their way up. They're filled by AA's because of the institutionalized bigotry that ran rampant in this country. And even though the institutionalization is gone, the effects aren't.

I will say, however, that I think that gender's a major issue, and I think that if the presidential race were between Barack and Hillary, Barack would win. I really do think that despite the fact that we're not past racism in this country, a black man would have a much better chance of winning the presidency than a white woman. Women of any race suffer from the stereotype that we're emotional and illogical, that if we become pregnant we suddenly lose any ability to think, that we're soft. I think a strong black man would win over a strong white woman any day.

Sorry for rambling. I've just been thinking about all of this recently. I hope that I'm doing an okay job of expressing my opinion here. I know it's a touchy subject, and I sometimes do a craptastic job of stating my views.

msnicolea

05-07-2007, 03:44 PM

Important observations, MLA--I totally understand what you are saying.

I live in a city with a staggering racial divide--and I say this as someone who grew up in the South. I can't fully express it right now, but it has been on my mind a lot lately, too.

villanelle75

05-07-2007, 03:50 PM

I think Delta should be cut a little slack. She's not saying that racism doesn't exist. She's not saying that it won't play a part in Obama's election chances. She simply saying that she thinks Americans, by and large, are ready for a black president.

I think his race is going to be a larger obstacle than Delta seems to, but I understand her posts enough to see that she isn't denying racism.

Of course racism exits. Of course we have a long way to go in race relations and cultural understandings. But we've managed to elect "minority" (women, AA, Latinos, Jews, etc.) representatives and senators and governors. We have been ready to have "minorities" in those positions for a long time and now, perhaps we are ready for an AA president. Surely there are some bigots who aren't at all ready for this, but Perhaps enough main stream Americans are that it might happen.

That in no way negates the notion that racism is still a problem. Correct me if I'm wrong, Delta, but I think this is what you were trying to say. I don't see why this would make anyone shake their had in sadness or feel disgusted or discouraged. No one in this thread has denied that racism is a problem.

FTR, I think racism will be a bigger obstacle for Obama than Delta seems to. I think for those people who are ready for an AA, female, Jewish, etc. president, it's hard to comprehend just how many people aren't ready, and just how the minds of the many bigots in this country work. I think part of the human condition is thinking that everyone thinks and feels more or less the same way as we ourselves do, so it's easy to fall in to the trap of thinking that mindsets we don't share aren't' very common or very dangerous. It's incomprehensible for me to think that someone wouldn't vote for a person based on their race or gender, so it's all to easy to assume that few people would do such a thing.

Adaya

05-07-2007, 03:56 PM

Well said MLA. I grew up in the north and came to GA to go to school. I joke with my friends that I was constantly "made aware" of the fact that I was black when I came here. The racial divide here is so much more in your face and apparent than where I grew up. I mean I guess that's just the nature of the geography huh? But still, race was never such an "issue" for me until I came here.

wendalah

05-07-2007, 04:07 PM

It wasn't my intention to downplay racism when I mentioned gender issues...just that I don't think we've even conquered gender inequality problems yet, let alone racism.

It's kind of sad to think that women are half the population and have half the votes, and we still are so far from trusting women as leaders.

thelittlebabu

05-07-2007, 04:32 PM

John Kerry came within 100,000 votes in Ohio of winning the 2004 election. Had he won Ohio, he would have won with states in the northeast, the upper midwest and the west coast: states that recently trend democratic. Who would Obama have to run against to lose those states in 2008, especially against a candidate whose party the country appears to be tiring of? Will his race really cause him to lose those states? If so, what does that say about the voters in these liberal-leaning states?

Race definitely is an issue and might cause the red states to vote more red, but consider those states lost anyway. The key will be if race is an issue in the blue states. And a swing state like Ohio.

villanelle75

05-07-2007, 04:48 PM

I think that the issue isn't going to be with voters who consciously decide that because he's AA, they won't vote for him. I'd wager to say there enough of those people to make a difference in an election, and I suspect that among the minority who do think that way, most wouldn't vote Democratic in the first place. (And before anyone asks, no I don't have any hard stats to prove this. It's just my gut feeling.)

No, it isn't the voters who will not vote for him because he's AA that will play a major role here. The KKKers and the segregationists are too small a minority to make much of a difference, and they probably wouldn't vote for a white Dem either. It's the voters who don't say racist things and aren't overtly discriminative, but who look at him, watch a TV ad or two, and a speech here and there, and decide that there is just something, and they can't put their finger on what it is, that they don't like about him. Of course, that something will be that he's AA, but their issues with AAs are so deeply ingrained and subtle that even they won't know that that's why they don't like him. I think those are the voters that could cause an AA man to be unelectable. And there are plenty of those people in the blue states and the swing states too.

Delta

05-07-2007, 05:04 PM

Thank you villanelle for your post, as it gave some confirmation to me that my words were making some sense. Perhaps I am being naive, I don't know. I am just saying what I feel in my gut. I am well aware there is racism and a racial divide in this country. The issues are far from resolved. My belief that America is ready to elect a black president and my belief that Obama might have other, bigger obstacles does in no way negate the issue or role of his race in this election or in this country. It is not my intention (obviously) to make anyone feel disgusted or sad, and I'm still a bit unclear as to why what I am saying is making people feel that way. Nevertheless, I'm very sorry for that. I realize this is a very sensitive issue.

nylons73

05-07-2007, 05:39 PM

It is a normal procedure for this -- especially after 1968 (RFK) -- the SS needs to take precautions to help decrease the likelihood of problems.

Huh? This is not a 'normal procedure' for the Secret Service. Traditionally, candidates have to have a certain amount of funds to be put under protection. Usually this comes down to the front-runner and a strong 'other' in the weeks before the election (for instance Bill Bradley had protection down the stretch of his race vs. Gore in '00)

However, every Tom, Dick and Harry do not get protection (I have friends in the Secret Service.) The threat must have been extremely credible for Obama to have been assigned protection (if indeed he has it.)

nylons73

05-07-2007, 05:40 PM

Hillary is already under SS protection. All former Presidents and their spouses get lifetime protection.

True! Hillary is a special case, like you mentioned. She will get lifetime protection. If the SS deems it ness, while she's running for President so will Chelsea.

No, it isn't the voters who will not vote for him because he's AA that will play a major role here. The KKKers and the segregationists are too small a minority to make much of a difference, and they probably wouldn't vote for a white Dem either. It's the voters who don't say racist things and aren't overtly discriminative, but who look at him, watch a TV ad or two, and a speech here and there, and decide that there is just something, and they can't put their finger on what it is, that they don't like about him. Of course, that something will be that he's AA, but their issues with AAs are so deeply ingrained and subtle that even they won't know that that's why they don't like him. I think those are the voters that could cause an AA man to be unelectable. And there are plenty of those people in the blue states and the swing states too.

Villanelle - you hit it right on the nose here. As I have mentioned before in other Dem. threads, one of the biggest problems for Obama is that his polling numbers will probably never really be accurate. Much like what happened to Harold Ford Jr. in Tennessee this last time around (race for Senate.) Voters like to tell people that they are going to vote for an AA candidate. Makes them sound progressive and open. However, many people are not really that progressive or that open. So, they go around telling pollsters (and others) "Oh yeah, I'm voting for Obama." However, when they get into that voting booth, it's another story. This is a documented obstacle that AA candidates have to deal with. Several studies have been done about this phenomenon. And, I completely agree that a lot of it may not even be known to the voter him/herself. I think you are totally accurate in describing a voter who just doesn't favor Obama, but doesn't quite know why.

It's the same reason that studies have shown that white candidates tend to do better in job interviews, even when less qualified than their AA counterparts. Employers/interviewers report feeling a sense of being 'comfortable' with a white candidate or feeling a sense that the white candidate is simply the 'right fit' for a position, without race being an overt issue. When questioned (confidentially of course) the interviewer/Employer truly does not see race as a part of their decision-making, even though, in a lot of cases, it was very likely part of the unconcious judgement of the person hiring.
__________________

MLA

05-07-2007, 06:57 PM

The racial divide here is so much more in your face and apparent than where I grew up. I mean I guess that's just the nature of the geography huh? But still, race was never such an "issue" for me until I came here.

Exactly. I live in a liberal oasis of the South -- actually one of the most liberal places in the country, by some measures -- and the racial divide is still so pronounced that it's staggering. I will say, though, that I work regularly w/AA's who have managed to become great leaders in our community and who have attained great heights despite the obstacles. That's not something that could have happened 50 or 60 years ago, and that gives me much hope.

kimbyj

05-07-2007, 07:54 PM

The very reason why I have just given up on posting in threads dealing with race and similar issues is because I'm just tired of feeling like I'm going around in circles and getting nowhere, especially with the same people.

Just came back from dinner and re-read this and had a good laugh.

All that I feel is left for me to say is DITTO!

nylons73

05-08-2007, 06:22 AM

The very reason why I have just given up on posting in threads dealing with race and similar issues is because I'm just tired of feeling like I'm going around in circles and getting nowhere, especially with the same people.

I think this is so sad. I remember my time in Washington, working for one of the most revered AA members of Congress. This man worked with Dr. King in the 60's and then got elected to Congress shortly thereafter, that's how long he's been there! At any rate, he's banged his head against multiple walls for mulitple years, hearing the same dumb stuff, from the same people (mostly.) I onced asked someone on staff how they thought he kept going at it and going at it after all of these years. They just said 'he refuses to let his voice be silenced.' Thought that was so powerful.

It took for-ever for the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday to even be considered, and this member of Congress was at the forefront of the fight for all of those years. What should he have done - given up? Just decided it was never going to happen and quit?

If you are not there to counteract people whom you think will never 'get it' then you have in effect given up trying to let your voice be heard. I, for one, thinks that's pretty sad.

Sarah

05-08-2007, 07:18 AM

John Kerry came within 100,000 votes in Ohio of winning the 2004 election. Had he won Ohio, he would have won with states in the northeast, the upper midwest and the west coast: states that recently trend democratic. Who would Obama have to run against to lose those states in 2008, especially against a candidate whose party the country appears to be tiring of? Will his race really cause him to lose those states? If so, what does that say about the voters in these liberal-leaning states?

I don't know- do you think people are tiring of the party, or of GB? I wonder if hardcore Republicans, disgusted or frustrated as they might be with Bush, will turn to another party. Especially if whoever runs distances themselves from Bush.

Sarah

05-08-2007, 07:22 AM

All due respect, I don't think wanting or not wanting MLKJ day to be established is a good barometer for racism. You could think MLKJ was an amazing leader and still not think it's necessary to have a national holiday.

It's frustrating that whenever people who are not of color have a differing opinion here, it seems some people start with the eye rolling and the sighing and the high fiving over how ignorant the rest of us are. Someone can disagree with your politics or opinions and not be a raving bigot.

ITA with Villanelle- I don't personally agree with Delta's stance about america being ready, but I don't think she's at all downplaying racism, or needs to have all these insulting insinuations made about her.

msnicolea

05-08-2007, 08:03 AM

Delta--I didn't mean to suggest that YOU were making me sad--I feel sad because I have trouble believing that he really can get elected, and the reason for that is the color of his skin. Honestly, I wish I felt more like you do--but the fact is that I am surrounded by the white people villanelle speaks of--they aren't overt about it, but it's there.

philnikki

05-08-2007, 08:23 AM

It's frustrating that whenever people who are not of color have a differing opinion here, it seems some people start with the eye rolling and the sighing and the high fiving over how ignorant the rest of us are. Someone can disagree with your politics or opinions and not be a raving bigot.

Thanks for that Sarah, because I was trying to put into words how I felt about it, and I think you hit the nail on the head. I have avoided most political discussions on CC for some time now, because everyone likes to gang up on the republican (or democrat with a difference of opinion) and claim some a moral high-ground and point a finger at you and infer that you are a bigot/racist/whatever else. Sometimes, I think (and this is a generalization - not directed at any poster) some libs *need* racism/oppression to exist or else they wouldn't have something to feel so arrogant and superior about. That is something I have been thinking about for awhile now...how to cure racism when it seems as thought some of those opposing it thrive on its very existence, yet you never hear people talking about it. Hence the reason I pointed out that the "magic negro" article came from a black man, it wasn't just the white old twit. I think that racism is being perpetuated by other people that don't just live in the south and are the generalizations that are so often referred to on here (white, conservative, christian, southerner, pro-gun ownership, etc.) These generalizations are quite simplistic and are unfortunate. Not to say that it doesn't happen within those groups, but its just sad that our knee-jerk response is to blame them, instead of evaluating other sources of racism.

msnicolea

05-08-2007, 08:28 AM

philnikki--your post makes absolutely no sense and is completly insulting. I'd like to know how we liberals "thrive on racism." WTH does that mean?

MLA

05-08-2007, 08:40 AM

philnikki--your post makes absolutely no sense and is completly insulting. I'd like to know how we liberals "thrive on racism." WTH does that mean?

What she said.

Seriously, I can't even believe that someone would say that those who oppose bigotry thrive on its existence. That's narrow-minded, illogical, and completely insulting.

Well, now I suppose that philnikki can feel ganged up on since two of us have called her out for her post.

philnikki

05-08-2007, 08:51 AM

msnicolea and MLA - Thanks for pointing out the reason why many others do feel ganged up on! I didn't say "those who oppose bigotry" (in MLA's words), but that is what you both read.

I did say that there are "some libs" out there who thrive on it. If you identify yourself with every liberal-minded person in this country, I guess you could take offense, but I still believe that we tend not to want to see that racism comes from others that are outside the generalizations that are so easy to target.

Sorry if I offended, and if you feel my thoughts were insulting, but again, I did not direct that comment at any poster (made that pretty clear in my post just for this reason!)It was just a thought that I have had for awhile. If you don't think that there are those out there who "oppose racism" yet, appear to thrive socially, politically, financially from it's existence, I guess that is your opinion, but I disagree.

MLA

05-08-2007, 09:03 AM

I did say that there are "some libs" out there who thrive on it. If you identify yourself with every liberal-minded person in this country, I guess you could take offense, but I still believe that we tend not to want to see that racism comes from others that are outside the generalizations that are so easy to target.

Okay, so you wouldn't be offended if I said, "some" right-wingers out there are crazy fundamentalist Christians, hell-bent on destroying the foundation of this country? You wouldn't read that to mean that I might, possibly believe that "some" actually means "most"? Not saying that I do believe that, just saying that if I wrote that you'd be well within reason to assume that I was attacking right-wingers on a broader scale.

msnicolea

05-08-2007, 09:05 AM

You are making no sense. It is RIDICULOUS to assert that there's some sort of liberal cottage industry that thrives on racism.

And you're not being "ganged up on" because you are a conservative--you're being ganged up on because your posts are misinformed and illogical.

philnikki

05-08-2007, 09:08 AM

MLA No - I wouldn't, to be honest. I guess you can try and twist my words and assume a broader intent if you want to, but that simply isn't what I said. So, again, I apologize if I offended you, but again, didn't direct that at you or msnicolea or any other self-identified liberal on this board for that matter.

philnikki

05-08-2007, 09:13 AM

msnicolea - Again, I did not say that there is some "liberal cottage industry that thrives on racism". Just said that there are, again, some libs out there that appear to thrive on it existing.

MLA

05-08-2007, 09:15 AM

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree, then. I have a feeling you would take a remark like that in a broader sense -- especially considering how you seem to feel ganged up on whenever you enter political discussions. And I think you're dead wrong in your assertion that there are liberals out there who "thrive" on bigotry. Yeah. Because if racism were eradicated, there'd be NO other problems for people to be concerned about. Right.

msnicolea

05-08-2007, 09:15 AM

Like who? Who are these liberals who are rooting for racism? Going bananas for bigotry? I'd love some examples!

philnikki

05-08-2007, 09:34 AM

MLA - I am simply amazed at how perceptive you are then, that you would know *exactly* what my reaction would be to the comment you suggested. And its your right to assume what you want to about people (that you have never met) but that still doesn't always make you right, as much as you want to believe that it does.

And actually getting to the point of what I said: yes, I know that there are seemlingly endless societal ills out there that people tend to take up as their "cause". So it makes no sense to say that my point is invalid on its face because there wouldn't be something else that they wouldn't perpetuate at their own gain. I just see politicians and others that seem to perpetuate racism by their political gain from its existence. I feel the same way about many other issues and the "group politics" that exists today. You can believe that every liberal in this country is very enlightened, and righteous, but I think that there are people out there that would identify themselves in this way to benefit personally (be it socially, financially, or politically).

philnikki

05-08-2007, 09:48 AM

misnicolea - Its pretty obvious to me that you aren't willing to have a rational debate about it, since I have apparently personally offended you (which I have said time and again was not my intent, but I guess that is irrelevant at this point). I can name at least 6 politicians and 2 self-appointed demagogues, and four "celebrities" that I feel are perpetuating racism through their opposition to it, which is directly contributing to their financial, social and political benefit. But what happens when I put this list out there? Would you actually debate the merits of my argument or continue to say that its "offensive, illogical, and misinformed". I guess I just don't see a point, unless you are willing to offer up an actual reason why my argument is wrong, instead of just calling it ridiculous on its face.

msnicolea

05-08-2007, 10:14 AM

You have not supported your argument in any way. Until you do, I'll continue to believe you to be misinformed. I am happy to consider and respond to evidence-based arguments. What I can not and will not tolerate is vitriolic hyperbole.

If a person is engaging in the type of profiteering you are describing--perpetutating racism or any -ism for profit--then I would venture to say he/she isn't a true "liberal" in the first place. That's certainly not a "liberal" value.

Niobe

05-08-2007, 10:30 AM

Sometimes, I think (and this is a generalization - not directed at any poster) some libs *need* racism/oppression to exist or else they wouldn't have something to feel so arrogant and superior about. That is something I have been thinking about for awhile now...how to cure racism when it seems as thought some of those opposing it thrive on its very existence, yet you never hear people talking about it.

Huh? I'm still a bit sleepy, but I don't know if there's caffeine enough in the world to make this line of thinking make sense. Liberals want racism to exist so that they can feel superior to whom? The racists? And the people who are anti-racism are really thriving on racism's existence? Thriving how, exactly?

Wait, is this like the argument that Al Gore thrives on pollution because he invests in companies who clean up the environment? Yeah, I don't think that's "thriving on racism", I think that might be more accurately called "putting your money where your mouth is" with a touch of good business sense on the side. Just because you make money doing something you are passionate about doesn't diminish the value of your passion.

kimbyj

05-08-2007, 11:01 AM

Nylons73- I just wanted to point out that you may have missed what Adaya previously wrote about my Mfume post. It coincides with your point.

Adaya

05-08-2007, 11:38 AM

It's frustrating that whenever people who are not of color have a differing opinion here, it seems some people start with the eye rolling and the sighing and the high fiving over how ignorant the rest of us are. Someone can disagree with your politics or opinions and not be a raving bigot.

I'm not sure who or what post you were referring to, but I've read back through this thread and not once have I seen any eye rolling towards any person here. Too bad about the vibes you are getting, but the last time I checked, this was an open message board for discussion on all fronts. So high fiving, sighing, or bigotry, it's all fair game as far I see it, whether we like it or not.

And truth be told, I think some of us are tip-toeing around in these types of threads for fear of being kicked off or being shunned (or maybe that's just me cuz I really like it here and want to stay ;)). But there are others who can say all kinds of funky stuff either in "public" or in PMs (which I have received quite a few unsavory PMs over the period of time I have been here starting with God awful Plantation thread) and feel like they have some sense of entitlement to say these things for whatever reason.

Now I can keep it real too, but then when that happens, oh "she's playing the race card" or "she's living in the past." No, the deal is many around here are just plain ignorant. Bigot? No. Racist? No. I don't think anyone here is a racist bigot, or so I would hope not. But you never know. But I do think some people make a choice to be ignorant..close their eyes to things when people are presenting them with something loudly, clearly and in technicolor. Some people like living in their fantasy world of "everything is okay". Some people like staying on their side of the street and not even wanting to consider those on the other side.

The problem is not with the differing opinions. That's a given when you put people of different races, backgrounds, religions, etc. together. The problem is when you have people with differing opinions who don't want to expand their minds and see the other side. When people "choose" to stay on their side of the street and play in their own sandbox.

nylons73

05-08-2007, 12:07 PM

kimbyj - thanks. I'll have to go back and look for that.

philnikki - What you wrote is delusional and sad. There is no liberal minded group who wants racism to exsist. Yes, some people take it up as a cause they believe in and want to fight against, but that is usually because it has affected them in some powerful way and they WANT TO GET RID OF IT. If it were ever eradicated, I am sure they would be happy and would take up something else that needed their attention.

Would you also assert that people who constantly bring up the fight against cancer want it some how to live on so that they can keep fighting it?

What about people who are vocal about autism, depression, and pollution? Do you assert that those people whom are the most vocal and most 'out there' on these issues somehow want them to perpetuate and go on so that they can 'further their fame?'

Your posts are just so stunning and so sad. I am angered by your words, yes, but most of all I am so saddened by them. :(

wendalah

05-08-2007, 12:21 PM

I think what's being implied here is that some people do profit (either in the literal sense, or on a personal moral basis) from espousing certain ideals. It's certainly called out in the case of right-wingers all the time (how many times do we hear "He calls himself a Christian?"). Without taking sides here, I don't think it's beyond comprehension to say that some folks on the left side of things are at least capable of being a bit of the same cloth.

Adaya

05-08-2007, 12:25 PM

If you are not there to counteract people whom you think will never 'get it' then you have in effect given up trying to let your voice be heard. I, for one, thinks that's pretty sad.

I think you somehow looked over post in response to kimbyj. You made some good points in which I'm all fully aware of. I do my part on a daily basis in my career to let my voice be heard. The profession I chose allows me to do just that.

So to come to a place such as this where I really enjoy simply sharing recipes and shooting the breeze about American Idol and posting my random thoughts to only find out that I'm now expected to "do more", doesn't sit well with me. I came to CC as a place to hang out and have fun with some people that I missed at WC. I didn't come here to fight and argue with people, or have a person say and then others agree with her that I should be grateful the my ancestors were brought here on slave ships b/c I'm now better off today, or as I said in my previous post have PMs sent to me about how I'm a rebel and how I should take that "mess" somewhere else. So excuse my sad self if I don't want to let my voice be heard here on CC when I do it in so many other areas of my everyday life.

eta: Sorry for getting OT, but I was just addressing what was mentioned earlier in the thread. :)

pocahontas

05-08-2007, 12:45 PM

or as I said in my previous post have PMs sent to me about how I'm a rebel and how I should take that "mess" somewhere else.
Holy shyt...someone PM'ed you that? :eek: Geez...I hope you don't start needing Secret Service protection on CC. :rolleyes:

*Sidenote: Why did an image of a cross burning with hooded men saying "We don't take kindly to ya'll so take yourselves somewhere else" just flash in my head. :(

Adaya

05-08-2007, 12:52 PM

Holy shyt...someone PM'ed you that? :eek:

This happened around the time of the heated plantation debate. Right after that, other little threads popped up and similar discussions took place that I was a part of. People were getting fed up b/c there was some back and forth with some folks in the threads and it was requested that it be moved to PM...no problema. In one of the PMs, someone said that I was basically "too much" for CC and I should take my views and opinions elsewhere because I was stirring up too much trouble.

Hmm, I bet other "troublemakers" don't get such PMs. I could be wrong.

kedzieb

05-08-2007, 12:56 PM

This happened around the time of the heated plantation debate. Right after that, other little threads popped up and similar discussions took place that I was a part of. People were getting fed up b/c there was some back and forth with some folks in the threads and it was requested that it be moved to PM...no problema. In one of the PMs, someone said that I was basically "too much" for CC and I should take my views and opinions elsewhere because I was stirring up too much trouble.

Hmm, I bet other "troublemakers" don't get such PMs. I could be wrong.

Dude - whoever PM'd you is lame.

Questioning people's views or God forbid saying that racism exists = troublemaking? Hardly

msnicolea

05-08-2007, 01:00 PM

thelittlebabu

05-08-2007, 01:18 PM

I don't know- do you think people are tiring of the party, or of GB? I wonder if hardcore Republicans, disgusted or frustrated as they might be with Bush, will turn to another party. Especially if whoever runs distances themselves from Bush.
Hardcore republicans won't win the presidency for their party in 2008. The center will. When I said "people appear to be tiring of the party", I'm pointing to the centrists. With the congress switching over to the democrats in 2006 and GWB's 28% approval rating, it looks very much like the center is tiring of the republican party.

wendalah

05-08-2007, 01:19 PM

I was going off this:

just see politicians and others that seem to perpetuate racism by their political gain from its existence. I feel the same way about many other issues and the "group politics" that exists today. You can believe that every liberal in this country is very enlightened, and righteous, but I think that there are people out there that would identify themselves in this way to benefit personally (be it socially, financially, or politically).

I just made a parallel in my own mind to the many people who profit from or spread misinformation about, say, Christianity. If you're really strictly following the doctrine of Christ, you're not going to use the ideals for profit or hatred or division or even a sense of moral worth (quite the opposite, actually, as Christ preached humility over and over). Yet we all know Christianity has become quite the industry and quite the personal righteousness crutch to many individuals. I am not sure I'd go so far as to say some of these people are not "real" Christians, either--too slippery. But, to the same end, I don't think it's out of the question that politicians or "others" as stated might attempt to profit off of liberal ideals without really having much but self-interest at heart. That's all I read into this sentiment.

ETA: Living in a fiercely blue area I do agree that some people benefit from it socially, without much real interest in the actual ideals or ideas. As I'm sure the opposite holds true in fiercely red areas, of course.

wendalah

05-08-2007, 01:20 PM

Hardcore republicans won't win the presidency for their party in 2008. The center will. When I said "people appear to be tiring of the party", I'm pointing to the centrists.

Agreed with this...

msnicolea

05-08-2007, 01:22 PM

Just like you aren't a true Christian if you are a bigot or a liar, you're not a true liberal if, indeed, you want to profit from others' misfortune. So, people can call themselves whatever they want--but my point is that if you are a true progressive, a true liberal, then you wouldn't want racism to exist--and you certainly wouldn't perpetutate it!

wendalah

05-08-2007, 01:26 PM

Well, yeah, I agree with that, but aren't we all bigots and liars and profiteers to some degree?

msnicolea

05-08-2007, 01:32 PM

Maybe you heathens in California, but not all of us ;->

ysolde

05-08-2007, 01:33 PM

Race is the toughest issue we don't talk about, and I think one of CC's greates virtues is that is has given us a forum in which to discuss the issues surrounding race (and gender, which, historically, has been intertwined with race in this country in ugly, ugly ways) with open hearts and minds. For this, I think, we should all be thankful.

It is hard for me to talk about this subject, because I am a white woman of color, a white Latina, and I reap many of the benefits of "passing" in a city where my AA friends (who are all professionals) often can't get a cab at night. It is so hard for me to consider the implications of this: in the 21st century, there are people for whom the simple act of catching a cab is still an issue, because of the assumptions made about them. And you wonder whether we are ready to elect an AA president?

msnicolea

05-08-2007, 01:40 PM

Excellent points, ysolde. It's very difficult to talk about--but important that we do.

Sarah

05-08-2007, 01:50 PM

I'm not sure who or what post you were referring to, but I've read back through this thread and not once have I seen any eye rolling towards any person here. Too bad about the vibes you are getting, but the last time I checked, this was an open message board for discussion on all fronts. So high fiving, sighing, or bigotry, it's all fair game as far I see it, whether we like it or not.

Well, of course it's fair game. I wasn't saying you can't say it, just that it's frustrating. Delta said she has an very positive opinion about Obama's chances in the election (at least as race is concerned) and feels his race isn't a huge impediment to his election. She has some evidence to back this up (AAs are represented to some extent in Congress, in the cabinet, and in SCOTUS). So it's frustrating that what some posters took from that is that she is downplaying the very real struggle of AAs in this country. And as I said, I don't personally agree with her- I think racism is a much bigger problem in this country than she does, apparently, but I did feel she was getting attacked for what at worst seems like idealism or naivete, to me.

And truth be told, I think some of us are tip-toeing around in these types of threads for fear of being kicked off or being shunned (or maybe that's just me cuz I really like it here and want to stay ;)). But there are others who can say all kinds of funky stuff either in "public" or in PMs (which I have received quite a few unsavory PMs over the period of time I have been here starting with God awful Plantation thread) and feel like they have some sense of entitlement to say these things for whatever reason. Well, I don't know about that, but if people say crap to you in PMs, that's totally unacceptable. You should feel entitled to say whatever you want to say. But it would be condescending for me to feel I should tiptoe around you and never say what I feel because of your race, right? I am sure you don't want people to not challenge you because you are AA- right?

Now I can keep it real too, but then when that happens, oh "she's playing the race card" or "she's living in the past." No, the deal is many around here are just plain ignorant. Bigot? No. Racist? No. I don't think anyone here is a racist bigot, or so I would hope not. But you never know. But I do think some people make a choice to be ignorant..close their eyes to things when people are presenting them with something loudly, clearly and in technicolor. Some people like living in their fantasy world of "everything is okay". Some people like staying on their side of the street and not even wanting to consider those on the other side.
ITA that many here are ignorant- and I mean that in the real sense of ignorant. I think many people here haven't been exposed to many different people, or to discrimination. My FIL is from a tiny town with literally no black people, and he cannot be convinced that discrimination exists, because he "likes everybody the same." I think his viewpoint is akin to Philnikki's, and that is frustrating. I actually agreed with you in the plantation thread, and I appreciated your tireless fight there. I did think you went overboard in response to some of the differing opinions here, though. I can sort of imagine, however, that it gets frustrating to be dealing with ignorance or stereotype or discrimination, and that it's easy to lump people together and hard to make a distinction between people who think Obama could win because race won't hold him back, and people who think Obama could win because race isn't a big deal anymore and black people should stop complaining.

Amaye

05-08-2007, 02:07 PM

This happened around the time of the heated plantation debate. Right after that, other little threads popped up and similar discussions took place that I was a part of. People were getting fed up b/c there was some back and forth with some folks in the threads and it was requested that it be moved to PM...no problema. In one of the PMs, someone said that I was basically "too much" for CC and I should take my views and opinions elsewhere because I was stirring up too much trouble.

Hmm, I bet other "troublemakers" don't get such PMs. I could be wrong.

Wow!:eek: I honestly can't believe someone said that to you. I'm just in shock. I guess I shouldn't though. That's just sad.

MLA

05-08-2007, 02:10 PM

I think one of CC's greates virtues is that is has given us a forum in which to discuss the issues surrounding race (and gender, which, historically, has been intertwined with race in this country in ugly, ugly ways) with open hearts and minds. For this, I think, we should all be thankful.

I think this needed to be said again. I can't tell you how much I've learned about racial issues on CC. I'm almost ashamed to admit it because I feel like I should have had a better understanding before these online conversations w/AA posters. I thought that I was pretty enlightened and felt pretty darned good about my understanding of racial issues. But these conversations have really helped to educate me about how minorities view the world and what their reality is. It's something that I can't intuitively understand because, though I was the one of only two white girls in my entire 4th and 5th grade classes, I don't really know what it is to be a minority in this country. I don't know what it is to be discriminated against because of the color of my skin on a regular (and often subtle) basis. I've learned so much through these discussions, and I think they've made me a better person.

Okay, enough of my CC kumbaya for now.

MLA

05-08-2007, 02:11 PM

This happened around the time of the heated plantation debate. Right after that, other little threads popped up and similar discussions took place that I was a part of. People were getting fed up b/c there was some back and forth with some folks in the threads and it was requested that it be moved to PM...no problema. In one of the PMs, someone said that I was basically "too much" for CC and I should take my views and opinions elsewhere because I was stirring up too much trouble.

Hmm, I bet other "troublemakers" don't get such PMs. I could be wrong.

Wow. That's just so wrong. I remember those discussions and how heated they became. I learned a lot from that whole thing -- some of it good, and some of it very, very disheartening.

phoenics

05-08-2007, 02:28 PM

And Rush Limbaugh is certainly a twit, among many other things. I still want to know why the whole "Barack, the Magic Negro" crap didn't earn him the same fate as Imus. :mad:

Holy Crap - he said that?

phoenics

05-08-2007, 02:35 PM

No, it isn't the voters who will not vote for him because he's AA that will play a major role here. The KKKers and the segregationists are too small a minority to make much of a difference, and they probably wouldn't vote for a white Dem either. It's the voters who don't say racist things and aren't overtly discriminative, but who look at him, watch a TV ad or two, and a speech here and there, and decide that there is just something, and they can't put their finger on what it is, that they don't like about him. Of course, that something will be that he's AA, but their issues with AAs are so deeply ingrained and subtle that even they won't know that that's why they don't like him. I think those are the voters that could cause an AA man to be unelectable. And there are plenty of those people in the blue states and the swing states too.

Oh my gosh I could kiss you! You've stated so eloquently exactly my thoughts on the issue.

So many times in issues of race, I get really frustrated that for those 'obvious' issues of racism, I get so much blowback in terms of people just admitting those 'obvious' areas are racist or that they point to a much larger underlying racism problem.

The reason it's SO hard to handle the blowback when it happens is because if you have to sit there and constantly 'prove' the obvious instances of racism, then the 'subtle, ingrained' racism that many people have very little experience in identifying are all but impossible to point out or prove.

Thank you villainelle for your eloquent explanation - I feel like someone 'gets it' and that means so much.

phoenics

05-08-2007, 02:38 PM

ITA with Villanelle- I don't personally agree with Delta's stance about america being ready, but I don't think she's at all downplaying racism, or needs to have all these insulting insinuations made about her.

Unfortunately no one reads just this thread in a vacuum.

pocahontas

05-08-2007, 02:50 PM

Holy Crap - he said that?Nope...apparently he is just perpetuating it since some AA guy said it (who's a moron because he had to know a twit somewhere would take it and run with it :rolleyes: )and he prefaces it with the originators name on the radio (so that people won't try to crucify him. :o)

phoenics

05-08-2007, 02:55 PM

I was going off this:

I just made a parallel in my own mind to the many people who profit from or spread misinformation about, say, Christianity. If you're really strictly following the doctrine of Christ, you're not going to use the ideals for profit or hatred or division or even a sense of moral worth (quite the opposite, actually, as Christ preached humility over and over). Yet we all know Christianity has become quite the industry and quite the personal righteousness crutch to many individuals. I am not sure I'd go so far as to say some of these people are not "real" Christians, either--too slippery. But, to the same end, I don't think it's out of the question that politicians or "others" as stated might attempt to profit off of liberal ideals without really having much but self-interest at heart. That's all I read into this sentiment.

ETA: Living in a fiercely blue area I do agree that some people benefit from it socially, without much real interest in the actual ideals or ideas. As I'm sure the opposite holds true in fiercely red areas, of course.

But the problem is that neither you nor philnikki have given examples of how someone has actually perpetuated racism and then benefitted from it. I would think you would have to first prove that racism didn't exist and then prove that they benefitted?

The only case where I could even look in that direction could be the Duke Lacrosse rape case, some people have suggested that the DA used race as a platform for his re-election ...

My problem with this turn of discussion is that people tend to hold onto these unique and very sparse instances as some sort of barometer - thus even though cases of racism outnumber cases like these, it just means that when someone DOES experience racism, it makes it JUST that much harder to even get people to validate the experience, because everyone then just piles on 'well, are they playing the 'r-card', are they 'using this for re-election', or whatever... to the point that the REAL issues just get buried because everyone is LOOKING for a reason to say that the racism doesn't exist.

That's the very reason I absolutely HATE the term 'r-card' - because it's just another way of labeling people for crying out when something racist does happen - because of the very few cases where racism possibly was not a factor.

Additionally - I wanted to respond to something that nylons said: I think that she's right - we minorities cannot be silent on these issues - however it's an EVEN BIGGER mistake - nay offense - to assume that ONLY MINORITIES should be speaking up. I think the main issue that frustrates me is that so many times when something racial happens, everyone looks to the black community to 'solve' something within the community - as though the racial problem is caused by us.

I totally understand where Adaya is coming from. It's not right that minorities should be the only ones speaking to these issues - last time I checked, this country still had a majority race - they should do some speaking out too (and I am happy to see that many do).

The problem won't go away without everyone working hard to be aware.

phoenics

05-08-2007, 02:59 PM

Nope...apparently he is just perpetuating it since some AA guy said it (who's a moron because he had to know a twit somewhere would take it and run with it :rolleyes: )and he prefaces it with the originators name on the radio (so that people won't try to crucify him. :o)

Humpfh. :rolleyes:

I'm going to do my best not to comment on that because I'm trying to keep my blood pressure down.

philnikki

05-08-2007, 03:15 PM

My Original Statement: There are some libs out there who appear to need racism to exist in order to benefit socially, politically, financially.

1. I did not say that all libs need racism.

2. I did not say that there is some big liberal group with an agenda to promote racism.

3. I did not say that racism does not exist and is a big problem in this country.

So you can continue to call me (I am trying to find all of the nasty terms in all of your posts...) "Sad, delusional, misinformed, ignorant, and whatever else you can come up with after this post since I am about to leave and spend an evening out with my family. But personally, I think your twisting of my words, and your personal attacks speak volumes about *your* character. All I said was it there are some self espoused liberals out there actually profiting in some way from racism existing (and thank you wendelah for offering an example that they understood, because I, clearly, wasn't doing a great job of it).

philnikki

05-08-2007, 03:17 PM

Oh, the reason why I didn't even get to naming names, was because the whole issue got twisted from the get-go, so the idea never got a chance to be discussed in a rational matter. But whatever. Apparently I am just ignorant, so I might as well keep my mouth shut from now on.

msnicolea

05-08-2007, 03:31 PM

You didn't offer any examples, despite being asked to multiple times. Now you're hopping on Wendy's bandwagon because she could name one? Please.

You made a statement and were unable and unwilling to support it. That's what happened. But if you want to play the "persecution card"--knock yourself out!

wendalah

05-08-2007, 03:46 PM

But the problem is that neither you nor philnikki have given examples of how someone has actually perpetuated racism and then benefitted from it.

You're taking what I said wrong: My comment was just that I can see how some people might take liberal ideals (fighting against racism, for example as one) and use them to their personal gain without really having true heart for the ideal. I don't have to prove racism doesn't exist to say I believe there are people out there who promote ideals or ideas without the best interests of others at heart. (I think "perpetuate" was an unfortunate word to use to get the point across, and I didn't use it.) The reason I used Christianity as an example is because it's a pretty good model and it tends to fall on the right side of things more than the left.

phoenics

05-08-2007, 04:07 PM

You're taking what I said wrong: My comment was just that I can see how some people might take liberal ideals (fighting against racism, for example as one) and use them to their personal gain without really having true heart for the ideal. I don't have to prove racism doesn't exist to say I believe there are people out there who promote ideals or ideas without the best interests of others at heart. (I think "perpetuate" was an unfortunate word to use to get the point across, and I didn't use it.) The reason I used Christianity as an example is because it's a pretty good model and it tends to fall on the right side of things more than the left.

I still don't understand how I'm taking what you said wrong - I'm trying to understand and still I haven't gotten any real examples.

I'm not trying to say that there are not any examples - my whole point was that in focusing on those examples, it's sort of like changing the subject and diverting the discussion away from the real issue of racism in the first place.

Usually when people attack Christianity, they use examples of people using the faith for personal means as the basis for the attack - so maybe you can see where I would be a little worried about sending the discussion in that direction - or where I would wonder WHY we are even taking it there in the first place.

I think that is probably why philnikki got the reaction that she did - when I read what she said, I got the feeling that it was a diversionary tactic to take the discussion away from real instances of racism (that some people are predisposed to try to avoid at all costs because it makes them uncomfortable) to focus on the very small and few cases where someone *might* (if at all) try to capitalize on racism. It's sort of a 'why are we even talking about this when some liberals are probably just perpetuating racism just to profit'. Perhaps philnikki didn't mean it to come out that way, but that's how it came off to me.

Additionally, I think you and philnikki were talking about two different situations. Philnikki's comments came across as though she was accusing some liberals of perpetuating racism for personal gain, whereas you were saying that there *could* be some cases where some liberals perpetuated racism for personal gain.

The only problem I have is that in both cases, we still don't have any examples of where that actually happened - so sure, you can *say* it happened, but then others can dismiss it out of hand since nothing factual was given to back it up. Stating that 'well, it happened on the right with Christianity' doesn't really back it up. We're not talking about Christianity - we're talking about racism. So now instead of discussing the obvious racial issues, we're discussing whether or not some huge conspiracy exists to 'perpetuate' racism to benefit liberals. Kind of off-topic and off the point - and the real discussion about racism has been rather derailed.

ysolde

05-08-2007, 04:17 PM

kedzieb

05-08-2007, 04:21 PM

Not even worth my time to quote her, but I'm sorry to say I'm not surprised to see the thoughtless & ridiculous posts above. Saying that some liberals ("libs" BTW is dumb) want racism to exist so they can profit from it is seriously the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Yeah, and fire fighters are really hoping for some arson this summer! Way to be dismissive and offensive all at once!

phoenics

05-08-2007, 04:22 PM

phoenics --

The only person I can think of who has been argued to have used "the race card" for his own motives (political gain? publicity? not sure) was Al Sharpton, during the Brawley scandal here in NYC, many moons ago. It was ugly; it was divisive; it was sad.

I hesitate to say that Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson use the race card because I think that they face racial issues DAILY because society usually looks to them to 'solve' those problems. I think that means that they can sometimes be predisposed to 'see' a racial problem in many areas - where it may be more prudent to use caution - but I won't say they 'use' race for political gain because I know how many times they are 'right'. Besides, if more people in this country would step up to the plate and not expect Jesse and Al to do it all themselves, then maybe their 'false positive' rate would be lower.

Delta

05-08-2007, 04:29 PM

[QUOTE]ITA with Villanelle- I don't personally agree with Delta's stance about america being ready, but I don't think she's at all downplaying racism, or needs to have all these insulting insinuations made about her.

Unfortunately no one reads just this thread in a vacuum.

If we are going to bring other threads into this, then I will say that it is extremely frustrating and almost impossible for me to have any sort of good conversation about issues like this when things are read into my posts that I simply am not saying. I get that you and I hold very different viewpoints about these things, but the discussion really gets nowhere when I feel like my words aren't being understood nor my clarifications acknowledged. How much of it is intentional and how much is just truly misunderstanding, I don't know, but it's frustrating.

I hesitate to say that Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson use the race card because I think that they face racial issues DAILY because society usually looks to them to 'solve' those problems. I think that means that they can sometimes be predisposed to 'see' a racial problem in many areas - where it may be more prudent to use caution - but I won't say they 'use' race for political gain because I know how many times they are 'right'. Besides, if more people in this country would step up to the plate and not expect Jesse and Al to do it all themselves, then maybe their 'false positive' rate would be lower.This might just be me, but JJ and AS are the *last* people I look to solve racial problems. In fact, I think they tend to inflame and don't really promote productive dialogue or solutions at all.

ysolde

05-08-2007, 04:31 PM

I hesitate to say that Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson use the race card because I think that they face racial issues DAILY because society usually looks to them to 'solve' those problems. I think that means that they can sometimes be predisposed to 'see' a racial problem in many areas - where it may be more prudent to use caution - but I won't say they 'use' race for political gain because I know how many times they are 'right'. Besides, if more people in this country would step up to the plate and not expect Jesse and Al to do it all themselves, then maybe their 'false positive' rate would be lower.

I agree, and I wish more people would step up to the plate and speak up.

But I get the feeling this was the person people were referring to. Maybe not, though. I am no mind-reader.

For those who think racism is no longer an issue, here are some "interesting" stats:

There is one AA (male) partner at my firm.

There are no Latino partners.

There are no female partners of color.

These statistics are pretty standard nationwide, although they do not reflect the graduation rates of AAs and Latinos from the top law schools, nor even their hiring into the top law firms (Biglaw) as First Year Associates.

Delta

05-08-2007, 04:32 PM

wendalah

05-08-2007, 04:38 PM

That's the thing--it's difficult to "prove" someone is doing something for personal gain when we are discussing a subject that involves ideals (religion or racism). There are a lot of mixed opinions on people like Rev. Sharpton. Again that's why I used the Christianity parallel. You can "prove" someone used Christianity to their gain, but some people may not believe that because they approve of the person and/or their Christian stance. (I didn't mean to take the discussion away from racism, btw. I was just trying to make a parallel as to what I thought Philnikki might be trying to say.)

phoenics

05-08-2007, 04:54 PM

If we are going to bring other threads into this, then I will say that it is extremely frustrating and almost impossible for me to have any sort of good conversation about issues like this when things are read into my posts that I simply am not saying. I get that you and I hold very different viewpoints about these things, but the discussion really gets nowhere when I feel like my words aren't being understood nor my clarifications acknowledged. How much of it is intentional and how much is just truly misunderstanding, I don't know, but it's frustrating.

To be frank I am frustrated by your viewpoints as well sometimes.

This might just be me, but JJ and AS are the *last* people I look to solve racial problems. In fact, I think they tend to inflame and don't really promote productive dialogue or solutions at all.

Um - okay - but it's not like you are doing anything productive about it either, from what I can tell. What I've gotten from many of your posts is that racism really isn't a huge issue - maybe that's not what you mean to project from your words, but that's what I got.

But I think many people have the same feeling, so unfortunately it takes an AS or a JJ to face the public flack they get for their words and comments in order to bring attention to these issues. Sometimes they are wrong - but overwhelmingly they are NOT. What most naysayers of AS and JJ like to do is focus solely on the small set of instances where they are wrong.

It takes a lot of guts to put yourself out there to be a target for people's derision, as AS and JJ have done time and time again. Perhaps you don't realize that AS and JJ have done far MORE for equal rights than many of us have ever thought of doing - but because of a few missteps on their part people tend to try to ignore them.

I understand that because I think that's just how people are. But the fact still remains that while you may not look to AS or JJ to solve these problems, no one else is stepping up to do much of anything (well, some are, but they may not have the same clout as AS or JJ - or media outlets don't seek them out like they may seek AS or JJ (sometimes just to deride them)). I may not always agree with AS or JJ, but I also know that they've done a lot for equal rights and I also understand that sometimes in their fervor to fight racism, false positives happen.

I'm not trying to defend any man for any wrongdoing, but I don't really see them gaining much politically - because by and large, white America tends to shun them as a whole anyway.

phoenics

05-08-2007, 04:56 PM

I don't really see what you see in that way, but thank you for acknowledging where I am coming from, even if you disagree.

Have you looked? Honestly?

Delta

05-08-2007, 05:19 PM

What I've gotten from many of your posts is that racism really isn't a huge issue - maybe that's not what you mean to project from your words, but that's what I got.I may not agree that Don Imus is a racist and I may believe that Obama has bigger obstacles than his race in this presidential election and I may believe that America is ready to elect a black person as preident, but I have never said, nor do I believe that race isn't a huge issue in America.

But I think many people have the same feeling, so unfortunately it takes an AS or a JJ to face the public flack they get for their words and comments in order to bring attention to these issues. Sometimes they are wrong - but overwhelmingly they are NOT. What most naysayers of AS and JJ like to do is focus solely on the small set of instances where they are wrong.Actually, it's not so much about where thay are wrong or right or what they have or haven't done, it is more about the fact that in order to really get the heart of racial issues in this country, it's going to take a person or persons who inspire, provide insight, and bridge gaps between all races. I don't think JJ or AS do those things.

phoenics

05-08-2007, 05:26 PM

Actually, it's not so much about where thay are wrong or right or what they have or haven't done, it is more about the fact that in order to really get the heart of racial issues in this country, it's going to take a person or persons who inspire, provide insight, and bridge gaps between all races. I don't think JJ or AS do those things.

Actually I disagree. It's going to take ordinary people of all races simply refusing to tolerate racism on all levels and then pulling their heads up out of the sand instead of waiting on some magical one person or persons to solve the problem for them.

The problem with racism is that it's very existence is perpetuated by ordinary people who simply turn a blind eye - or even refuse to admit that it's a major issue (even when it occurs in subtle ways) because it doesn't really affect their world.

I also believe that people need to get over the fear of being 'labeled' a racist or the fear that they may be perceived as a racist - or cringing or getting defensive when someone notes patterns from slavery that are still around today. We can't talk about these issues if we spend all of our time arguing over whether or not someone is a racist or not. Sometimes I think people care more about the 'label' than they do solving the problem. It's almost like some people think, 'whew - Imus isn't a racist - or I'm not a racist - problem solved - no need to talk further'...

It's so frustrating trying to discuss issues like this because you spend so much time debating the 'big ticket racial issues' (the obvious ones) that you think that if you had to expend that much energy exposing something that should have been obvious, then it will take a much larger magnitude of energy to explain the more subtle (and pervasive) racism - IF you're able to explain it at all.

kimbyj

05-08-2007, 05:26 PM

Delta

05-08-2007, 05:44 PM

To be frank I am frustrated by your viewpoints as well sometimes.It's not that your viewpoints frustrate me. That's not what I said. Read my quote that you quoted again. Time and again in this thread and others you've taken my words and twisted them or misread them and gotten upset about what I've supposedly said, and when specifically asked to show where I've said those things or when specifically provided with a clarification, you just...don't acknowledge.

Actually I disagree. It's going to take ordinary people of all races simply refusing to tolerate racism on all levels and then pulling their heads up out of the sand instead of waiting on some magical one person or persons to solve the problem for them.Point taken! It really, really is. I was just responding to the notion that JJ and AS are looked to to solve the problems, when in reality if there is going to be a person or persons to do this, it won't be them.

I am puzzled as to why ANYONE doesn't realize that race (whatever race) is still an issue for a Presidential candidate (and for many others on a daily basis but let me confine me post to the topic at hand). That is what I still don't get. This is a topic that has been talked about the world over since Obama ever came on the scene.For what feels like the 10,000th time, nobody is saying race isn't an issue.

Sarah

05-08-2007, 05:50 PM

I also believe that people need to get over the fear of being 'labeled' a racist or the fear that they may be perceived as a racist - or cringing or getting defensive when someone notes patterns from slavery that are still around today. We can't talk about these issues if we spend all of our time arguing over whether or not someone is a racist or not.Yeah, the label is stupid, because to be honest, everyone has prejudices or discriminatory views, or even just slight preferences, etc. I know I do, and I would never consider myself a bigot. I think people who claim that they are "color blind" or whatever are just sticking their heads in the sand and refusing to admit their own prejudices.
I am puzzled as to why ANYONE doesn't realize that race (whatever race) is still an issue for a Presidential candidate (and for many others on a daily basis but let me confine me post to the topic at hand). That is what I still don't get. This is a topic that has been talked about the world over since Obama ever came on the scene.

Do the posters here have more information to make this decision and draw a different conclusion than fulltime, paid, political analysts/experts (and Obama's own campaign people who have also addressed this)?
I don't think anyone said this. I think they said that they thought it was an issue that Obama could overcome. And that's not a stupid thought- there are African Americans in almost every sector of government and business. Yes, representation isn't great, and yes, it might not happen this go-round, but it's going to happen eventually, and maybe this will be the time.

Your stance is (if you'll forgive the pun) very black and white- you seem to be saying that either someone admit that a black man could not be president right now (and that racism is an insurmountable hurdle), or they must be denying that racism is a serious issue. Isn't there a middle ground?

phoenics

05-08-2007, 06:15 PM

I don't think anyone said this. I think they said that they thought it was an issue that Obama could overcome. And that's not a stupid thought- there are African Americans in almost every sector of government and business. Yes, representation isn't great, and yes, it might not happen this go-round, but it's going to happen eventually, and maybe this will be the time.

Actually I thought that the sentiment expressed was that it wouldn't be the biggest obstacle he had to overcome - and that the feminine factor was the big deal.

I have a problem with that logic, because it's a well-known fact that the biggest benefactors of any affirmative action in this country have been white women... thus I'm not really sure the 'woman' issue would be insurmountable for Hilary.

As for whether or not race is a factor - a big, huge factor - for Obama to overcome, I believe it is. Ebony magazine (I said this before) did an article on this issue - how Barack has to face the racial issue not only with majority voters, but with black voters and other minority voters as well, so it's hard for me to say that race isn't his biggest hurdle. I think we'd all like to believe it is, but like Villainelle said, no one (for the most part) will ever openly admit to that - they may not even realize that they are holding his race against him.

I personally am torn - I like Obama and Hilary - because secretly I would just love to see Bill move back into the white house, lol. I think Obama does have to worry about 'splitting' the black vote between himself and Hilary - because she does have a lot of support in the black community. I'm also still learning about Obama so that's a hurdle too I guess.

wendalah

05-08-2007, 06:19 PM

I was the one who initially brought up the feminine obstacle. What was wrong with that? I wasn't eradicating race as an issue at all. I was merely saying, as long as we are talking about this--I honestly think a black man will get elected quicker than a woman. That's not to say I think the black man will have an easy time of getting elected.

ETA:

it's a well-known fact that the biggest benefactors of any affirmative action in this country have been white women...

I'm confused. How is this going to make the American population vote for a woman? Affirmative action is mandated. We as citizens have free choice over who we want to vote for.

bookworm

05-08-2007, 06:31 PM

it's a well-known fact that the biggest benefactors of any affirmative action in this country have been white women...

I haven't done the research so I can't dispute the claim, but I don't know how "well known" this fact is.

Maybe this is one of those things that has to do with exposure/perception, but I am quite sensitive to/aware of gender bias. I'm probably (almost certainly) less sensitive to racial bias, because it's not so personal. It's not that I doubt it exists, but it's not immediate. And because I don't really see the subtle stuff, it's hard to get riled up about. I'm not sure what to do about that.

jnettie

05-08-2007, 07:05 PM

There are people in this world that do things just so they can feel superior, to get themselves in the spotlight, or to get what they want without working for it by using some sort of cause, charity, or what-have-you. These people are called assholes. They come in many shapes, religions, races, and political bents, but they all share the common bond of being assholes.

I keep trying to write something eloquent. Ysolde and phoenics have pretty much said what I was thinking.

kimbyj

05-08-2007, 08:07 PM

For what feels like the 10,000th time, nobody is saying race isn't an issue.

UGH! Gee we're only on page 12 or so - "Slight" exaggeration but I sense your exasperation in trying to get people to understand what you mean. Honestly, I think they/we/I do understand but we/they/I disagree.

In general, my posts have not been related to just what Delta is saying but I think she feels misunderstood (at least by me and a few others). So, let me try to be more clear - I am puzzled as to why people (not just Delta although the examples may make it seem like it) don't feel race is a "HUGE issue for most voters" or that it is a "bigger obstacle than his middle name".

I am sure that people are actually taking the time to carefully read and respond here, know what was said and can go back to re-read as needed. Yes, inexperience will certainly play a part in who votes for him but I am having great difficulty understanding why ANYONE would think his middle name is more of an obstacle than his race. He is not from an "axis of evil"- terrorist country. He has no known connection to a terrorist group. He went to Harvard law school and was the editor of law review etc. etc. etc. Heck, he even has people like Oprah standing behind him. What I "see" as a HUGE issue is his race because that is what people notice from first glance. That is how a lot of people describe others. It is one of the first descriptions used by police, newspaper, etc. This topic has been talked about non-stop in the press (and, by people in general). "Black voters..." and then add the names Obama and/or Clinton and finish the sentence in any of a million ways. To me, race always seems to be at the forefront.

No, I don't like it to be that way but I feel that minimizing the effect or influence that race has in this (and many other) circumstances trivializes the issues we have regarding race in general. To me, race should not even be a consideration in an election for the president of the USA (or, frankly in just about every other situation). That this is not recognized makes me very sad.

I hate talking about race/color/ethnicity etc. in this way but I will only to try to explain where my mindset is coming from. I think growing up in an all white neighborhood looking like a "light" skinned black child (which I don't consider myself to be) with straight hair (which I don't consider myself to have) with a brother who is much fairer than I am (and was called "white boy" by his black classmates), having a Jamaican mother (who is even more fair skinned than my brother) who is part Portuguese and Indian and looks Chinese and finally a Panamanian father who is dark skinned has made me extremely sensitive to race issues. I have had to deal with this for 38 years now. Maybe, that could be a bias for me in this discussion. Also, DH is from Iran and my brother's wife is from Japan. We deal with issues of r/c/e and religion on a daily basis. As a former dean of multicultural affairs, I know that this is on the mind of most college students, parents, alums, faculty etc. I have sat through many discussions on this and even debated race with people like Ward Connelly. As a former lawyer, I can't begin to explain the number of times race has come up in cases I have taken to trial. Now, as an HR consultant, it remains the number 2 issue/complaint from employees (number one is my boss doesn't give me a raise/treat me well...because...race etc.).

I just don't think everyday people care about a name as much as they do other factors. Can you imagine that your name is Enrique and when you walk in for an interview someone says, "Oh, I wasn't expecting someone who looks like you. I was expecting a Spanish guy."? Well, that has happened to my father - and Spanish is his native language.

I realize many of us post from our own perspectives and based on what we know however, I know that I really make an effort to see things from many different sides (it's the damn lawyer in me). Unfortunately, in this case, I really feel like I have experienced quite a bit of "race" as a huge issue.

Niobe

05-08-2007, 08:45 PM

I have not been frustrated by ANYONE "downplaying the struggle of AA". I am puzzled as to why ANYONE doesn't realize that race (whatever race) is still an issue for a Presidential candidate (and for many others on a daily basis but let me confine me post to the topic at hand). That is what I still don't get. This is a topic that has been talked about the world over since Obama ever came on the scene.

I don't think anyone said this. I think they said that they thought it was an issue that Obama could overcome. And that's not a stupid thought- there are African Americans in almost every sector of government and business. Yes, representation isn't great, and yes, it might not happen this go-round, but it's going to happen eventually, and maybe this will be the time.

Your stance is (if you'll forgive the pun) very black and white- you seem to be saying that either someone admit that a black man could not be president right now (and that racism is an insurmountable hurdle), or they must be denying that racism is a serious issue. Isn't there a middle ground?

My answer to kimbyj is pretty much in line with what Sarah said. I do think race is an hurdle that Obama will have to overcome, just like gender is for Clinton, religion is for Romney, and a history of adultery is for Giuliani. Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I think it's a hurdle that Obama could indeed overcome. I mean, from my point of view, his chances of getting the Democratic nomination are as good as any of the candidates at this point. Dems will vote for the Democratic nominee, pretty much across the board. Most of the people who wouldn't vote for an AA for president wouldn't vote for a white Democrat either. And I think Obama, being a Midwesterner, and very intelligent and likable overall, has a good chance at getting enough swing voters to win.

Delta

05-08-2007, 08:58 PM

kimby - Great post. It is amazing to me - and very illustrative of the diversity of this country - how differently we (general we) see and view things. It depends so much on where you come from - geographically, culturally, racially, economically, etc.

jnettie

05-09-2007, 06:39 AM

I do think race is an hurdle that Obama will have to overcome, just like gender is for Clinton, religion is for Romney, and a history of adultery is for Giuliani.

Well, Giuliani made a choice to be an adulterer. Obama and Clinton were born that way. It's hardly a fair comparison. And as long as Romney is a type of Christian, he still has a huge advantage over anyone who is any other religion, or lack thereof. I wonder if Americans would vote for a Hindu?

Delta

05-09-2007, 07:48 AM

And as long as Romney is a type of Christian, he still has a huge advantage over anyone who is any other religion, or lack thereof. I wonder if Americans would vote for a Hindu?Actually, based on the poll I posted earlier, this is not true. (More people would vote for a Jewish person than a Mormon.)

phoenics

05-09-2007, 10:21 AM

I'm confused. How is this going to make the American population vote for a woman? Affirmative action is mandated. We as citizens have free choice over who we want to vote for.

Remember what Villainelle said about how many Americans may not openly realize that they may be holding race against Obama? That accounts for some of the affirmative action as well.

It's not mandated that companies pick a white woman over a minority male - but I daresay that it's far more 'acceptable' for a company to comply with affirmative action initiatives by hiring white women over minorities - since most of the AA programs include women as a disadvantaged group.

So - I would think there wouldn't be any confusion - I think that in this country, the fact that you are still white (even if you are a woman) still gives you benefits that minority males and females may not ha