georgeob1 wrote:The timing is obvious -- until recently it simply didn't appear that Obama had much of a chance of winning the nomination.
I don't claim to know Lewis' inner motives - they are unknowable. However, by exactly the same standard as has been applied on these threads to white voters in the South in earlier primaries (and generally accepted by others without comment) racism is indeed a likely motive for both Lewis and the majiority of Black voters.
I recognize this is like saying the emperor has no clothes, and note your reactions - just as Hans Christian Anderson described them.
Is 'racism' the right word for preferring someone like you? I have referred to this as 'identity politics.' I don't think that the women who prefer Hillary b/c she is a woman are sexist, i.e, they are not necessarily against men. I disagree with your use of the term racism.
If Lewis waited until it looked like Obama could win, then it seems as if another factor - electability - is at least as important as the color of Obama's skin. After all, it's the only thing which changed in between Lewis' first endorsement and his decision to change his mind.
Cycloptichorn
I think it is much simpler than that. Note that Lewis represents a district in GA (mine, to be exact) which overwhelmingly supports Obama. Maybe he's just being true to his constituents.
mysteryman wrote:blatham wrote:MM
My respect for you is already on thin ice. Please cease with the ridiculous "chicom". It makes you look like another cliche-for-brains freerepublic toadie.
I apologize for that abbreviation.
I dont normally do that, but the fire alarm was going off and I had to finish my thought quick and get ready to go.
It turned out to be a false alarm and we were recalled before we even left the station.
If you have read my posts you know I dont abbreviate like that.
Once again I apologize.
That's damned gracious of you. Thanks. I confess to an acute dislike for this term for a set of reasons I won't bother us with. Again, thankyou.
MM said
Quote:BTW, in case anyone cares, I just got promoted to Lt on the fire dept.
Thats why the new pic.
I get to wear a red shirt now.
Congrats. And a tip of the hat for community service. Firemen are always the good guys.
Even Democrats are cruel! The same ones busting his chops are at best, ineffectual! :wink:
Cycloptichorn wrote:Is 'racism' the right word for preferring someone like you? I have referred to this as 'identity politics.' I don't think that the women who prefer Hillary b/c she is a woman are sexist, i.e, they are not necessarily against men. I disagree with your use of the term racism.
If Lewis waited until it looked like Obama could win, then it seems as if another factor - electability - is at least as important as the color of Obama's skin. After all, it's the only thing which changed in between Lewis' first endorsement and his decision to change his mind.
Cycloptichorn
If you have a preferance for yet a new set of euphamisms I won't object. I believe they are at best silly, but know that the PC crowd has a strong affinity for them.
No one here suggested the white male voters of Alabama and Georgia who voted for Hillary a few weeks ago were doing so because they may have (correctly then) believed she was more electable. On the contrary it was generally asserted that they were engaging in "a particularly vicious form of identity politics based on race". (Do you like that better?)
georgeob1 wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Is 'racism' the right word for preferring someone like you? I have referred to this as 'identity politics.' I don't think that the women who prefer Hillary b/c she is a woman are sexist, i.e, they are not necessarily against men. I disagree with your use of the term racism.
If Lewis waited until it looked like Obama could win, then it seems as if another factor - electability - is at least as important as the color of Obama's skin. After all, it's the only thing which changed in between Lewis' first endorsement and his decision to change his mind.
Cycloptichorn
If you have a preferance for yet a new set of euphamisms I won't object. I believe they are at best silly, but know that the PC crowd has a strong affinity for them.
No one here suggested the white male voters of Alabama and Georgia who voted for Hillary a few weeks ago were doing so because they may have (correctly then) believed she was more electable. On the contrary it was generally asserted that they were engaging in "a particularly vicious form of identity politics based on race". (Do you like that better?)
I just think that people can have preferences towards their own tribes, i.e. voting on identity politics, that don't necessarily make them a racist or sexist person. You are using the word racist incorrectly.
Trust me, as an Obama supporter, I understand exactly what you are saying - if it wasn't for the support of White, older women, Hillary would never have made it this far. So should I refer to all those voters as racist, sexist women? Doesn't seem accurate.
Cycloptichorn
soz quoted-
Quote:McKeom said she's leaning towards Obama.
It's that ol' black magic I told you about soz.
I would guess that Mr Lewis is flipping over because he wants to be in the winner's tent.
We don't know what's in Lewis' head. But let's take up george's challenge directly.
First, he says
Quote:by exactly the same standard as has been applied on these threads to white voters in the South in earlier primaries
I'm not sure which posts he refers to and perhaps he can find one.
But more to the point, if Lewis did shift his allegiance because he and Obama are black, is that racism in the way we normally understand the term? In fact, is it racist for any black to support Obama out of racial solidarity? Finally, is is racist for a white like me to support Obama because, or partly because, Obama is black? (Of course, there's a parallel situation here presently with Hillary and gender).
I think george's use of the term 'racism' is pretty clearly in contrast with how we normally understand the term. I'll paste in the three definitions given at dictionary.com
Quote:1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
and from Websters
Quote:1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
That element of superiority/inferiority is critical to our understanding and our experience of racism. If that element is removed, then what we are left with is merely a preference to support or hang out with people most like ourselves, or buy a house in a neighborhood where people with who we identify live. We can assume with some certainty that my grandparents mainly hung out with other mennonites and that george's ancestors here in America might well have cast votes for an Irish politico rather than an Italian simply out of that same sense of comfort and identification. If an Italian immigrant moves to Little Italy, is he being racist?
To snood, fishin and those who feel as I do! I was shocked and amazed at Lewis, Rangel and Shiela Jackson-Lee, with their "bad-talkin", no action, selves! Andy Youngs comment threw me for a loop about how many black women Obama had had, referring to Bill Clinton's "black-ness". Famous last words, that will come back and bite them on the bottom! I knew then, that poliitics, has no color but "green"! Those little packages, thrown into bills, called "pork", which is why politicians "bring home the bacon"! Lewis's about face, only proves that without the votes of their constituencies, THEY might NOT be returning to Congress, either! I will be voting with the Green Party, if Obama doesn't get the nod, in protest of NEVER voting for Hillary and her not so subtle, racist remarks!
Having graduated with a Ph.D in fending off racism as a child, now an adult, I will not allow my senses to be clouded over by a loyalty to the husband of someone who "changed welfare as we knew it", a system HE and his Mother survived on, but took away from others! That goes for Newt "PWT" Gingrich, too, whose Mama called Hillary a "b*tch", while she was first lady! Some upbringing!
sozobe wrote:Snood, yes, I had the exact same reaction re: Lewis!
I was so disappointed in his performance on Newshour -- he was so obviously spouting talking points rather than speaking his own mind. It's nice to see him shrug that off.
I'm not sure if it makes a huge difference practically -- Obama is past the point of really needing help with the black community -- but symbolically it's huge IMO.
:wink:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I just think that people can have preferences towards their own tribes, i.e. voting on identity politics, that don't necessarily make them a racist or sexist person. You are using the word racist incorrectly.
Trust me, as an Obama supporter, I understand exactly what you are saying - if it wasn't for the support of White, older women, Hillary would never have made it this far. So should I refer to all those voters as racist, sexist women? Doesn't seem accurate.
Cycloptichorn
You are merely playing with words and deluding yourself in the process. If it was racism that motivated white male voters in the South recently to vote for Hillary (as was alleged here and on other threads, almost without comment or objection) then the corresponding behavior of Black voters is also racism.
Do you object to the use of the term racism altogether? Or instead do you reserve it only for the actions of whites?
Do you believe "identity politics" is a benign thing, OK for (say) women, blacks and other supposedly victim groups, but not OK for others? If so, on what basis do you assign greater latitude and freedom of action to individual people of one group compared to another? Is that not racism (gasp!) or "identity politics" itself.
georgeob1 wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:
I just think that people can have preferences towards their own tribes, i.e. voting on identity politics, that don't necessarily make them a racist or sexist person. You are using the word racist incorrectly.
Trust me, as an Obama supporter, I understand exactly what you are saying - if it wasn't for the support of White, older women, Hillary would never have made it this far. So should I refer to all those voters as racist, sexist women? Doesn't seem accurate.
Cycloptichorn
You are merely playing with words and deluding yourself in the process. If it was racism that motivated white male voters in the South recently to vote for Hillary (as was alleged here and on other threads, almost without comment or objection) then the corresponding behavior of Black voters is also racism.
Do you object to the use of the term racism altogether? Or instead do you reserve it only for the actions of whites?
Do you believe "identity politics" is a benign thing, OK for (say) women, blacks and other supposedly victim groups, but not OK for others? If so, on what basis do you assign greater latitude and freedom of action to individual people of one group compared to another? Is that not racism (gasp!) or "identity politics" itself.
You can't just make words mean whatever you want and expect people to agree with you. Blatham quite succinctly pointed out above why you are using the term incorrectly.
Also, you state
Quote:If it was racism that motivated white male voters in the South recently to vote for Hillary (as was alleged here and on other threads, almost without comment or objection)
Can you link to this? I don't remember there being a lot of posting along these lines. It seems that you are
alleging that people blamed racism on Obama's losses in the south, but I'd like to see some proof of that.
I don't like Identity politics! i hate them! It is the worst way to vote for a candidate, b/c the vast majority of issues that a Prez has to deal with have NOTHING to do with one particular gender or race. But I don't think that the people who engage in them are 'racist.'
Cycloptichorn
You need to look the word racist and racism up in any dictionary. Racism is one group in the MAJORITY, (whites), denying the rights of another group, in the minority, (blacks and others)! Whites have done it since we stepped on the Virginia shore in 1619. The timing is indeed obvious! Ask Jesse Jackson, (1984-88), and Shirley Chisholm, (1972). If I have voted for all white men since 1968, why can't I vote for a Black man, now?
georgeob1 wrote:The timing is obvious -- until recently it simply didn't appear that Obama had much of a chance of winning the nomination.
I don't claim to know Lewis' inner motives - they are unknowable. However, by exactly the same standard as has been applied on these threads to white voters in the South in earlier primaries (and generally accepted by others without comment) racism is indeed a likely motive for both Lewis and the majiority of Black voters.
I recognize this is like saying the emperor has no clothes, and note your reactions - just as Hans Christian Anderson described them.
I would add that, as a Republican, you have no doubt supported a White Male in every single presidential election of your life.
Would you like to be called a sexist, racist voter?
somehow I doubt it.
Cycloptichorn
Well, there hasn't been much of an alternative to white males from either side of the aisle, until now. Unless you count Jesse and Al.
Then again, if you voted for Slick, you voted for the first black president. I think he has the same pigment problem as Michael Jackson.
blatham wrote: That element of superiority/inferiority is critical to our understanding and our experience of racism. If that element is removed, then what we are left with is merely a preference to support or hang out with people most like ourselves, or buy a house in a neighborhood where people with who we identify live. We can assume with some certainty that my grandparents mainly hung out with other mennonites and that george's ancestors here in America might well have cast votes for an Irish politico rather than an Italian simply out of that same sense of comfort and identification. If an Italian immigrant moves to Little Italy, is he being racist?
If that element is the "critical factor" then you'd best get working to have the majority of civil rights legislation in this country overturned.
I suspect that if I set out to hire 50 people and specified in my "Help Wanted" ad that blacks need not apply because I have a prreference to only work with "those like me" you'd see that ad as racist (as most people would and should).
Each dictionary definition stands on it's own (unless it references another!) and you ignored the variious defintions that don't agree with your reply. If you had scrolled down just a bit farther on dictionary.com you would have also found this definition:
"Discrimination or prejudice based on race."
And From your own quote from Webster's:
"2 : racial prejudice or discrimination"
George's use fits within both of those.
blatham wrote:We don't know what's in Lewis' head. But let's take up george's challenge directly.
...
But more to the point, if Lewis did shift his allegiance because he and Obama are black, is that racism in the way we normally understand the term? In fact, is it racist for any black to support Obama out of racial solidarity? Finally, is is racist for a white like me to support Obama because, or partly because, Obama is black? (Of course, there's a parallel situation here presently with Hillary and gender).
I think george's use of the term 'racism' is pretty clearly in contrast with how we normally understand the term. I'll paste in the three definitions given at dictionary.com
Quote:1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
First let me note my bemusement with the earnest opposition to my use of the dreaded word "racism" by folks who have willingly used it about whites. Secondly, please note that the three definitions above are independent and inclusive - meeting any of the three definitions is sufficient - simply the existence of a lesser tolerance for a candidate of one race on the part of either black or white voters would meet the definition Blatham offered. Moreover precisely that standard is applied generally here in discussions of supposed white racism. Moreover this is the standard the Department of Labor applies in equal opportunity audits of businesses - any degree of systematic intolerance or preference for one group over another is enough to establish racism. Finally as Blatham asks "Is it racist for any Black to support Obama out of racial solidarity" -- an interesting argument that would work just as well for white solidarity; gay solidarity; Irish solidarity; etc. Apparently Blatham buys the soladarity argument - if so it works just as well for whites.
blatham wrote:and from Websters
Quote:1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
That element of superiority/inferiority is critical to our understanding and our experience of racism. If that element is removed, then what we are left with is merely a preference to support or hang out with people most like ourselves, or buy a house in a neighborhood where people with who we identify live. We can assume with some certainty that my grandparents mainly hung out with other mennonites and that george's ancestors here in America might well have cast votes for an Irish politico rather than an Italian simply out of that same sense of comfort and identification. If an Italian immigrant moves to Little Italy, is he being racist?
Nonsense. As Webster noted "racial prejudice or discrimination" is a definition -- and that clearly cuts both ways. The "superiority" argument has no role in this definition. Blatham's earnest sophistry is duly noted -- however the various benign "preferences" he noted are themselves routinely used to establish supposed "racism" on the part of whites.
***Warning: I haven't gotten caught up so this isn't apropos of anything really. I'll put it in my blog too in case it gets lost in the main discussion going on now***
Just got back from the Michelle Obama rally!
SO fun.
It was a similar crowd to when I saw Barack Obama last October. In fact, I recognized some of the same people. One of them was a staff member who I've seen several times in the NYT. She was in a video about how the SC campaign was doing a barbershop/ beauty shop tour very early on (probably a full year or so ago) and then also was just on the front page a couple of days ago, as one of several people in the audience at, again, a SC event. She saw me looking at her so I went up and said the above -- that I remember her from the October event and that I keep seeing her in the NYT. She smiled and then introduced herself -- "Hi, I'm [didn't catch]." I introduced myself in turn and then said "Keep up the great work!" and then moved on.
After I was already in the main room for the event I realized that I think she said "Hi, I'm Ashley." Wonder if she's THE Ashley?? ("I'm here because of Ashley." Which speech was that?) I looked for her afterwards but didn't see her again. Will try to figure it out later.
Anyway... I'd been trying to set up an interpreter but I didn't find out about this until very recently and there were a few levels to get an interpreter. I asked a volunteer whether the interpreter happened, he didn't know but said he'd go check. Then he said no, there wasn't, but that he could get me to the very front so I had a hope of lipreading. (The room [a very big one] was already very full at this point -- no chairs, just people standing.)
So he led me to some VIP area, with chairs, about 20 feet from the podium. Awesome.
The VIP area was a cool collection of people. There were a lot of very well-dressed black people (as I mentioned in my account of the October rally -- not just dressed up like for a business meeting or something, but opera-worthy ensembles), some local politicians I recognized, a Sudanese woman in full veil etc., and a bunch of other people.
I especially liked the self-proclaimed "bouncer" who was guarding the corner of the rope separating people from the podium area. She was about 4' 8" and grandmotherly, with a hand-made (she informed us) sweatshirt with an Ohio "O" and "Yes we can!" underneath it.
After I was settled in, an apologetic-looking staffer came up and asked for my name and number so that they could be sure to get an interpreter for next time Barack comes to town. This includes letting me know personally the details of his visit as soon as they find out. Excellent! (I accidentally kept the guy's pen and found him afterwards to give it back, he reiterated that they'll make absolutely sure everything's taken care of next time, so nice!)
Then right on time, Mayor Coleman and his wife came out to introduce Michelle. Looked like a nice speech but it was hard to understand.
Then Michelle! Definitely one of those people who look even better in person than in pictures though she was eminently recognizable. She started right out with a tentative "O H...?" (body language was a purposeful "uh, am I doing this right?" for comic effect) and got a rousing "I O!!" in response. She did a few more, picking up in volume each time, then laughed at herself and got down to business.
Great speech. I didn't catch all of it and sure hope that there will be a transcript somewhere. I also caught sections but because of how it works when I lipread for a long time haven't retained it. (I remember committing to memory the fact that "comeback" was a big applause line but I don't remember context.) At one point Mayor Coleman had to wipe tears from both eyes, and an older, very dignified black lady in front of me -- who Michelle made frequent eye contact with -- wiped her eyes a few minutes later. I don't have a firm grip on what that was about.
Michelle is so natural. She's really, really good at just starting to talk, connecting with the crowd, going this way and that but speaking clearly and in a way that got people fired up. No teleprompter, no notecards. I saw her play off the people around me a few times -- a head would start nodding and she'd look at that person and build on the point until the whole room was applauding.
She kept talking about how the bar has been raised -- it was about how much more complicated things are, how you can do everything right but still not be able to keep your head above water. Every time she came back to that point she made the exact same gesture with her left hand. She was generally very easy to understand, very expressive with both her hands and her face. Very Midwestern phrasings and accent as far as I could tell.
Another refrain was "Barack gets it."
Anyway, she obviously did a great job, both from what I saw and from the reactions of the crowd.
After the speech she did the hand-shaking rounds -- I got to shake her hand, and I said "You're better than Bill..." ;-) At first she was kind of uh-huh then got it and gave me a big crinkly-nosed grin. I turned to go but it wasn't so easy, lots of people trying to press towards her. A bunch were thrusting things at her to autograph and I realized that the New Yorker I'd brought to read if it was a long wait was eminently autographable -- the Obama-and-Hillary-as-Eustace-Tilley cover -- so I thrust that over too and got her autograph on it. Yay!
Very fun.
Cycloptichorn wrote:I would add that, as a Republican, you have no doubt supported a White Male in every single presidential election of your life.
Would you like to be called a sexist, racist voter?
somehow I doubt it.
Cycloptichorn
Well, as a Democrat you have done exactly the same. So your fate (apart only from your very recent conversion) would be the same as mine. If I am a racist, you are, at best, a recovering one.
I don't think that anyone enjoys these labels cast at them. I don't think that southern blacks would enjoy it any more than Southern whites. Frankly those who so prodigiously hurl those labels around don't impress me much and I pay little attention to what they say. Once one has drunk the PC Kool Aid, the effects seem to be lasting. The spectacle of a few Democrats wringing their hands over the choice between sexism and racism is frankly hilarious.
