LoneStarMadam wrote:snood wrote:So if he got elected and everyone referred to him as the first African-American president (as we surely would forever), this terminology would be problematic for you?
Yes it would. He/she would be an
American President, not an
African President. I don't use the hyphonated terms for any ethnic or racial group, no
Italian-American, Irish-American or whatever, because I believe that it causes even more devisevness.
What about if people referred to him as "the first black president", would that be a problem?
Whether you call it "black" or "Afro-American", it seems like a mere statement of fact to me. Just like Kennedy was the first Catholic US president. That was meaningful.
nimh wrote:LoneStarMadam wrote:snood wrote:So if he got elected and everyone referred to him as the first African-American president (as we surely would forever), this terminology would be problematic for you?
Yes it would. He/she would be an
American President, not an
African President. I don't use the hyphonated terms for any ethnic or racial group, no
Italian-American, Irish-American or whatever, because I believe that it causes even more devisevness.
What about if people referred to him as "the first black president", would that be a problem?
Whether you call it "black" or "Afro-American", it seems like a mere statement of fact to me. Just like Kennedy was the first Catholic US president. That was meaningful.
No, because he is a black man.
JFKs choice of religion was just that,
a choice, a persons race is not a choice. There's no comparison.
OK, so calling him "the first black American president" would not be a problem, but calling him "the first Afro-American president" would be divisive, in your take. Gotcha. Curious to me, but - to each his own.
Phoenix32890 wrote:When Kennedy was first running for President, the issue of his Catholicism was a big deal. Once he was elected though, that problem simply vanished, and he became the American President. I never once saw him referred to as the "Catholic-American President".
Not "Catholic-American", no - but "the first Catholic American president", surely you have.
11,200 webpages that mention Kennedy and "first Catholic president", according to Google
nimh wrote:OK, so calling him "the first black American president" would not be a problem, but calling him "the first Afro-American president" would be divisive, in your take. Gotcha. Curious to me, but - to each his own.
Every black person is not an "African", some not even of African descent. Why do people insist on calling every black person "African-...."?
Like lumping them into one basket.
Barak is an American, a black American. There is some group, I think in Baltimore, that does a lineage for blacks. One guy, a reporter for a TV news channel had his lineage done, none of his ancestors were from Africa. he called himself an "American", how refreshing.
An American President should be known as "The American Presidet".
Who says he won't be?
He can be both "the first black president" and "the American President." These are not mutually exclusive concepts.
Obama is a phenomenon of sad proportions.
All anyone really knows about him is on an entirely superficial basis, and yet we have relatively intelligent people in this forum viewing him as the Second Coming.
He may very well prove to be a glorious leader for America, but there is, currently, no rational reason to believe this to be the case.
His primary attributes are (in no particular order)
Eloquence
Good looks (beaming smile)
Non-threatening blackness
Charisma
It is incredible as well as ridiculous to witness Democrats wet their panties for this fellow.
Why would any intelligent person vote for him to lead the most powerful nation on earth?
Because he's cool?
Because he has a marvelous cadence to his public speeches?
Because you are starved for a comic book hero to lead your country?
He is. clearly, a very talented individual, however there is no reason, at all, to believe that those talents include leadership of America. Anyone who argues to the contrary is hanging on to a political wet dream.
As much as I detest Hilary Clinton, it is, by far, a safer bet to have her, rather than Obama, run our nation.
I'm afraid I'm just not comfortable with the notion that he might grow into the job. I didn't vote for George Bush for the same reason, and I doubt any of the current Obama supporters will concede that W has grown into the job.
Stop and consider the shallowness of your affection for this man.
Years ago, when I lived in North Carolina, George Martin was running for governor and came to my corporate headquarters to shake hands and woo voters. He was positioned, on this day, at the beginning of the cafeteria line. As I walked down the the three flights of stairs that separated the main floor from the cafeteria, I saw a, literally, shining figure hanging out by the forks and knives.
If a ballot and been been handed to me at that moment, I would have voted for Martin. In the end I did vote for him but it was because I agreed with his ideas rather than becoming enthralled to his personal radiance.
The point is that really powerful and famous people in this country have an almost magical Glamour about them. Reduce it far enough and one can fully expect to find charisma as a survival mechanism, but we don't happen to live on the Serengeti Plains. We don't need to find magic in our leaders.
Our ancient ancestors were wise enough to recognize the dangerous power of charisma, and those that lived in the Holy Lands warned of the Anti-Christ.
There is no Anti-Christ, because there was no Christ, and Obama can't, in any way, be associated with the Anti-Christ, but the perils of superficial charisma remain cogent.
(Bet made and explained later)
As much as I find myself drawn to Obama, I would vote for Clinton, Gore or Kerry before him.
Dry your nether regions --- it's unseemly.
Finn,
I follow your "it's not always the most popular guy who gets the job done" logic on this one... but submit that on occasion; it is (See: Ronald Reagan). The attributes you scoff at may well prove to be the defining qualities of a great President.
1. As you know; it is in no small part his inexperience that attracts me, being quite tired of watching business as usual. I can't be alone in desiring a change from the bipartisan old guard BS I've watched since birth.
2. Those same attributes, even if they only serve to garner popularity, can still be used to force handshakes across the aisle and maybe even get something meaningful done. If, and it is a big IF, he could get approval ratings from the nation as high as he does in Illinois, you would see bipartisan cooperation, whether his adversaries liked his prize winning smile or not.
3. One need not be a world traveler to realize the consensus of world opinion of our current leader is just about as bad as it could be (though I'm crossing my fingers that statement doesn't jinx us :wink:). This has to be considered when accessing the relative lack of global cooperation we currently receive. Again; these same attributes could play a major role in reversing this trend.
Sony's Betamax was considered by many to be a superior technology to JVC's VCR. Doesn't help, if you can't sell it. Sometimes it is the most popular guy, who gets the job done.
sozobe wrote:Who says he won't be?
He can be both "the first black president" and "the American President." These are not mutually exclusive concepts.
In YOUR opinion, not mine.
So does your "reasoning" apply to women as well? Hillary should just call herself an American president and not a female American President?
Don't be silly, Snood. All excess estrogen, much like excess pigment must be removed prior to taking the Presidential Oath of Office, otherwise we'll all be divided.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, cease to be black, female, catholic, short, tall, fat, skinny etc, and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Smiles...
Well, with any luck, each time a person with some new background for the presidency gets to the presidency... there would be an Our President thing going on by the part of the electorate that voted for him or her, and presumably some part of the part that didn't vote for him or her, at least for the "honeymoon" period.
My own problem with electing various people that I might like on their own is similar to a situation in hematology. If you see a blast cell or many blast cells in a blood smear, you see, usually, some kind of leukemia. What kind? You start to name it by the company the cell keeps.
So in Mexico now, if you are following that thread, started, I think, by Infrablue, but data filled by our posters in Mexico.... you'll see that choices by Calderon for positions in the government may affect how many react to the considered elected government.
I describe that while having voted in my mind (remember, I'm a lefty in many ways) for Calderon versus Lopez Obrador.
snood wrote:So does your "reasoning" apply to women as well? Hillary should just call herself an American president and not a female American President?
Hillary won't be president, not of the US anyway, but if there is a woman elecetd to the presidency, yes, she would be
the American President. I believe the proper address of a president is
Mr President, or Madam President.
OCCOM BILL wrote:Don't be silly, Snood. All excess estrogen, much like excess pigment must be removed prior to taking the Presidential Oath of Office, otherwise we'll all be divided.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, cease to be black, female, catholic, short, tall, fat, skinny etc, and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Now
that would be pure bigotry. BTW-That didn't seem foreign to you....maybe it's you that's bigoted?
LoneStarMadam wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:Don't be silly, Snood. All excess estrogen, much like excess pigment must be removed prior to taking the Presidential Oath of Office, otherwise we'll all be divided.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, cease to be black, female, catholic, short, tall, fat, skinny etc, and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Now
that would be pure bigotry. BTW-That didn't seem foreign to you....maybe it's you that's bigoted?
Not true. Some of my best friends are black, female, catholic, short, tall, fat, skinny etc. Really.
OCCOM BILL wrote:LoneStarMadam wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:Don't be silly, Snood. All excess estrogen, much like excess pigment must be removed prior to taking the Presidential Oath of Office, otherwise we'll all be divided.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, cease to be black, female, catholic, short, tall, fat, skinny etc, and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Now
that would be pure bigotry. BTW-That didn't seem foreign to you....maybe it's you that's bigoted?
Not true. Some of my best friends are black, female, catholic, short, tall, fat, skinny etc. Really.
WHy are you tring so hard to convince people that you are so well rounded in your choice of friends?
Most of my friends are white, & I don't feel guilty about that.
LSM, My last two posts were satiric humor. It is now clear why folks are having trouble getting points through to you across the board. I, for one, will try to lay off in the future. Peace, out.
OCCOM BILL wrote:
LSM, My last two posts were satiric humor. It is now clear why folks are having trouble getting points through to you across the board. I, for one, will try to lay off in the future. Peace, out.
I apologize, but, & thiis isn't an excuse, just a reason, I am never sure about most people here & humor isn't a strong suit on this board. Again, I apologize for misunderstanding your humor/sarcasm.
