These screwballs won't know what a adhominem is if it was taught to them by their parents.
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.)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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)
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"
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.
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".
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.
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?
