cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 23 Jul, 2006 10:50 pm
These screwballs won't know what a adhominem is if it was taught to them by their parents.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Mon 24 Jul, 2006 02:17 am
Phoenix32890 wrote:
In any case ANYBODY would be an improvement over the schmuck that we have in the White House now.

... and who got your vote over all the good advice from sozobe, blatham, and myself. Better listen to us this time! (Ah, the fun of playing the guilt card.)
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Mon 24 Jul, 2006 03:14 am
SierraSong wrote:
The radical Left is pissed because

I cant help but giggle at the notion of a "radical Left" in the US. One must be to the right of Genghis Khan to see one, I think.

But anyway: a Democrat can do without the support of what you call the radical Left to win the primaries. Just remember what happened to its favourite in 2004, Howard Dean.

And when it comes to the Presidential elections themselves, its probably an advantage for a Democrat to be criticized by what you call the radical Left. Bill Clinton sure was.

So your point is?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Mon 24 Jul, 2006 03:20 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Side Note: It is interesting that he his so often described as an African-American. Perhaps he prefers that designation himself, but wasn't his father black and his mother white? Can't help also thinking, in this context, of today's British Open winner, Tiger Woods. He too is more often then not referred to as African-American, while his father was black and his mother is asian.

Yeah, good point. But thats how it goes: everyone who is not pure white, is black - eg, one parent of colour will have you categorised as that parent's race. That's done as consistently by whites as by any minority group "claiming" the person, and it says something.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Mon 24 Jul, 2006 05:23 am
SierraSong wrote:
blatham wrote:
SierraSong wrote:
He's slick. Watch and learn.

Many Dems are beginning to despise Obama. Read the liberal blogs. One of his 'constituents' describes him as "pathetic". I agree.



Yet, as that (unlinked blogger, one of the "many" similarly undefined and unlinked) fellow or fellowess would surely use that particular adjective to describe your contributions and "reasoning", what credibility would he have?


A rather famous "unlinked blogger" at that. The Dems are in a circular firing squad, it seems. But then, I love it when they begin to eat their own. :wink:


Perhaps you could provide a link. Think of this protocol as a demonstration of your personal courage.

We'd all hate to surmise that you are merely full of those gaseous wisps which can follow, say, the awkward digestion of Ralph Reed.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Mon 24 Jul, 2006 05:49 am
nimh wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Side Note: It is interesting that he his so often described as an African-American. Perhaps he prefers that designation himself, but wasn't his father black and his mother white? Can't help also thinking, in this context, of today's British Open winner, Tiger Woods. He too is more often then not referred to as African-American, while his father was black and his mother is asian.

Yeah, good point. But thats how it goes: everyone who is not pure white, is black - eg, one parent of colour will have you categorised as that parent's race. That's done as consistently by whites as by any minority group "claiming" the person, and it says something.


Yup. It is the echo of the earlier and more "severe" categorization of a "colored" person as anyone having any degree of non-white heritage. And of the ascention towards pridefulness of a genetic inheritance (and cultural inheritance) previously derogated and marginalized.

Tiger presents an excellent example of the positive effects of such pridefulness in the dramatic increase in the number of black kids taking up that sport (lots of writing in the big golf magazines on this over the last decade). Of course, previously, when an association between blacks and golf might be portrayed, it was with the black as caddy to the white fellow.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Mon 24 Jul, 2006 06:03 am
Here is an interesting article concerning the definition of being black in America, that comes from the PBS show, "Frontline".

Quote:
To be considered black in the United States not even half of one's ancestry must be African black. But will one-fourth do, or one-eighth, or less? The nation's answer to the question 'Who is black?" has long been that a black is any person with any known African black ancestry. This definition reflects the long experience with slavery and later with Jim Crow segregation. In the South it became known as the "one-drop rule,'' meaning that a single drop of "black blood" makes a person a black. It is also known as the "one black ancestor rule," some courts have called it the "traceable amount rule," and anthropologists call it the "hypo-descent rule," meaning that racially mixed persons are assigned the status of the subordinate group. This definition emerged from the American South to become the nation's definition, generally accepted by whites and blacks. Blacks had no other choice. As we shall see, this American cultural definition of blacks is taken for granted as readily by judges, affirmative action officers, and black protesters as it is by Ku Klux Klansmen.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/mixed/onedrop.html
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Mon 24 Jul, 2006 06:11 am
kiss
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Mon 24 Jul, 2006 06:15 am
Thanks Nimh, Blatham and Phoenix.

I was going to say something to the effect of the things you've posted, but had mixed feelings about what kind of crap I'd have to put up with as a result.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Mon 24 Jul, 2006 06:17 am
Yeah, nice definition.

Finn, I wonder what you would call Obama? I wouldn't call him white. I think he has as good or better a claim on "African-American" as anyone else, since his father was, in fact, African.

I think "African-American" and "black" are generally interchangeable, depending on current preferences. (Those preferences have seemed to wobble a bit in the last decade or so, but maybe it's just that different people prefer different terminology and those people have remained steadfast but it depends on who I'm talking to. At any rate, "African-American" seems to be fading, a bit, somehow has an early 90's connotation. "Black" seems to be being used more. That's completely anecdotal/ my own impression, nothing to back it up.)
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Mon 24 Jul, 2006 06:20 am
Nice quote from Obama I found when I was seeing what I could find via Google:

Quote:
If I was arrested for armed robbery and my mug shot was on the television screen, people wouldn't be debating if I was African-American or not. I'd be a black man going to jail. Now if that's true when bad things are happening, there's no reason why I shouldn't be proud of being a black man when good things are happening, too.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Mon 24 Jul, 2006 06:41 am
Also, if you didn't know who Tiger or Obama were, and they boarded the same subway car you were on, later on if you had to quickly describe them you would say "two black men (or african-americans or whatever your appelation of preference) got on the subway". In other words, it is the identity handed to anyone who looks remotely black - it is not baggage that gets chosen.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Mon 24 Jul, 2006 06:43 am
Yep.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Mon 24 Jul, 2006 06:50 am
Maybe I am being a Pollyanna, but I would love to see the day when a person would no longer have to characterize himself by ANY category.

Why is Obama proud of being a black man? It would be better if he were proud of himself. His accomplishments say nothing about any other black person, and remarks like that, IMO, only serve to perpetuate racial differences.


http://www.projectview.org/BBHOFEFT.JRobinsonLesson.htm

Quote:
I called Robinson in for a conference soon after. I had to test him and don't kid yourselves, Robinson is no gentle breeze. He is a competitor, a gentleman, and has great personal respect. He is a credit to his race, and to baseball, and he knows that much of his race's future is on his shoulders. For two years, in observing that trust, he has had an almost Christ-like taste of turning the other cheek.

He has great homage coming to him, and his race owes him homage. But we must be careful, for some of the things you'd like to do for him just cannot be. He must be treated the same, no better nor worse, than a white boy of equal ability in our game. "


I remember the remark being made that Jackie Robinson was, "a credit to his race". Even at my young age, I thought that was a peculiar thing to say. How did Robinson's greatness have anything to do with other black people? It was Jackie who was the great person. To me, calling him a "credit to his race", was a slight, a put-down, the implication being that a great person of the black race could somehow raise the level of the entire race.

When I grew up in the '40s and '50s, blacks and whites rarely lived together in the same neighborhoods. There was a standard line that was heard over and over from the lips of the knee-jerk liberals, in an attempt to show how non-prejudiced they were. That was, "Well, I wouldn't mind if Ralph Bunche moved next door to me.

It was only when I was older, when it finally hit me. Why the hell would Ralph Bunche want to live next to ME????


Link to Ralph Bunche

This same attitude is similar to the person who feels superior because one of his relatives was a great success.................the snob who feels superior because her ancestors landed on Plymouth Rock, the person who feels somehow better because he went to school with someone who later became famous.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Mon 24 Jul, 2006 06:52 am
snood wrote:
Also, if you didn't know who Tiger or Obama were, and they boarded the same subway car you were on, later on if you had to quickly describe them you would say "two black men (or african-americans or whatever your appelation of preference) got on the subway". In other words, it is the identity handed to anyone who looks remotely black - it is not baggage that gets chosen.

Yeah kinda like wearing a Stetson and, therefor stupid, bean there, done that. (Unless your name is Reagan or Bush)
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Mon 24 Jul, 2006 06:56 am
phoenix

That is, I think, a tad Pollyanna. It really is a matter of what must occur or come to pass between the two points of deep racism and none. It won't be an on/off switch. Interim points will have to be established and lived in for a while, perhaps a long while. My argument is that a necessary point on that traverse is the recognition of racial/cultural worth and the attendent pridefulness that must form part of that. There really must be a period where people say, "I'm proud to be this unique thing"
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Mon 24 Jul, 2006 07:00 am
I watched most of a special last night with Tom Brokaw, "Separate but Unequal." It's about the lasting effects of racism in modern Mississipi. A lot of these kids don't have fathers in their lives, don't have role models, people who can show them other ways of living. Obama is powerful simply as a role model -- an accomplished black man who has an actual shot at becoming president. President!

I couple that with something I read recently about the ability of children to "max out" their genetic potential. A series of studies (I can look this up if you'd like) found that while there is a heavy genetic component to intelligence, it's heavily influenced by environment. Specifically, poverty reduces IQ. This is commonsensical but points to why the cycle is so hard to break, and I'm all for anyone who can help break that cycle in any way.

It is the nature of people to form groups. When a Deaf person does something great, I'm proud. When a Deaf person does something stupid, I'm ashamed. As a member of that group, what other Deaf people do reflects on me, for better or for worse.

I don't see his remarks as perpetuating racial differences, I see them as recognizing a division that exists, and wanting to take it somewhere positive.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Mon 24 Jul, 2006 07:03 am
snood wrote:
Also, if you didn't know who Tiger or Obama were, and they boarded the same subway car you were on, later on if you had to quickly describe them you would say "two black men (or african-americans or whatever your appelation of preference) got on the subway". In other words, it is the identity handed to anyone who looks remotely black - it is not baggage that gets chosen.


Absolutely right. And if the person coming on the train had bright red hair, tattoos all over, weighed 350 pounds, was built like a brick shithouse, or were 6'4", that might very well be mentioned too.

I love to watch cop shows. Often a witness to a crime will say that the person was middle aged, of medium height and weight, with brown hair. That description says nothing.
It would be disingenious to think that one would not state the obvious, in the service of "political correctness".
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Mon 24 Jul, 2006 07:05 am
OK so to take it a little more general -- do you (anyone) think that if Obama talks explicitly about his race + race in America, that will hurt him in the campaign?

I think that it's another one where the people who wouldn't vote for him wouldn't like it (but wouldn't vote for him anyway) and the people who would vote for him would think it's refreshing. Not sure about the undecideds.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Mon 24 Jul, 2006 07:07 am
Quote:
It would be disingenious to think that one would not state the obvious, in the service of "political correctness".


Then don't you think it might be a tad disingenious to say that someone is "perpetuating racial differences" by stating the obvious, too? Related to the above, is Obama supposed to never comment on the fact that he's black or implications thereof?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 45
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.92 seconds on 07/09/2025 at 02:14:01