@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Thanks Snood.
George: You need look no further than Okie to see why the type of denial you are employing annoys me. Three paragraphs he writes without acknowledging the simple fact that latent bigotry exists and that it will work to the detriment of Obama. While I fully expect this type of idiotic denial from Okie; I don't expect anything of the sort from you.
Well, I don't think I have employed any type of denial, benign or otherwise., and don't therefore acknowledge any reason for your annoyance if it exists. Bigotry of all sorts pervades mankind all over the world and it takes many objects and forms. Despite this we find - in most cases - other causes for the choices peope make than bigotry. (Frankly I'm not sure what added meaning the modifer "latent" adds to it.)
I don't think I have obfuscated or been oblivious either.
The history of exploitation and racism visited on blacks in this country is well enough known, and its effects have been pervasive and bad - for everyone, but them far more so. However the pace of change in this aspect of American life has been very rapid in the last two generations, and we have reached a point where individual achievement readily overcomes such foolish distinctions in a rapidly increasing number of cases. That is the essential point here. This election is not a contest between a "typical" black and a "typical" white man: it is a contest between individuals of different political parties, each representing different perspectives on key issues important to most Americans, each posessed of distinct individual characteristics of which skin color is decidedly secondary.
To illustrate, while I believe the odds of an inner city black man in (say) central Baltimore of escaping his environment are not good; neither are they good for his white counterpart on the west side in "pigtown" (that is what they call it) . In an analogous way, I believe the likelihood of the child of a white woman and a black man who had the ability and good fortune to graduate from Harvard law School; edit the Law Review; become elected to a state legislature and then to the United States Senate, to become elected as president of the United States is every bit as good as that of most white politicians of similar rank and experience. Moreover the events of the last year amply demonstrate the truth of this proposition.
For someone to suggest that the necessary (or even most likely) explanation for the defeat of such a candidate in a presidential election - after an exhausting campaign involving numerous, hotly debated political issues with well-known potential direct effects on most everyone - is his skin color, involves a rather sweeping, categorical prejudgement of the basically unknowable motives of large numbers of people. Moreover it is almost certainly based on similar, implied categorical premises such as that the election is between a "typical" white man and a "typical" black man, when in fact it is between two very individual people whose other attributes and political positions are key elements in the contest. While this kind of sloppy, categorical thinking is perhaps not as vile as the categorical prejudgements involved in racial, ethnic or religious prejudice, its deficiencies from a logical perspective are every bit as great. It is that to which I was referring when I made the comparison in your case.
I believe many Americans of all racial/ethnic backgrounds (how many I don't know) are bouyed up and excited about the idea of the election of the first black president of this country. It is a naturally appealing idea which in many ways can be seen as vindicating the best and most central premise of this nation - namely that all men are created equal - and symbolizing the long road we have travelled in making our reality approach this ideal. I have felt this myself, and it was only after serious consideration of the concrete issues and positions that I reached my own conclusion. I'm sure there are some (again, how many I don't know) who may be influenced by unthinking, unreasoning racism in the matter. However, particularly in view of these two competing impulses, and in addition the plethora of well-defined political/policy issues, I find it very far from obvious that the necessary or even likely explanation for an Obama defeat (should it happen, and right now the odds are against it) should be racism, "latent" or otherwise. Indeed, I find such a conclusion to be offensive to common sense, logic, and the character of our nation, excusable only by the lazy, sloppy, categorical thinking on which it is likely based.
I didn't follow the disputes between you and okie, so I have no opinion. In my exchanges with him I have not found any of the attributes you indicate.
(BTW - did you know that "Barack" is a Hebrew name?)
This is your standard bullshit, Okie. I have never so much have implied let alone accused George, Lash, Finn, Asherman, etc of being racist, bigoted, stupid or moronic... and these are people who largely share your idiology. You are an idiot. That's not my standard fare; that is my assessment of you. It has everything to do with you, not me. The water boy is a bigot, pure and simple. That has everything to do with him, not me. This bullshit about I accuse everybody is as tired as it is false.
