Obama '08?

It appears that the contingent who forward the assertion that the dearth of high level, black polticians is evidence that the electorate won't vote for them, cannot prove their assertion.

That's pretty much it. No problem.

Which issue is that? Race? Race as it affects politics? Obama's chances of running for office in 08?

I guess if I can't prove something that most reasonable people would stipulate, like, oh let's see -there is still a lot of dicrimination against women in the workplace, that's supposed to mean something definitive, huh? Well, there's a whole boatload of things that cannot be proven here in this forum. And some things will settle into amiable disagreement, and some things get stirred far beyond their ability to offer stimulating discussion.

It appears that the contingent who forward the assertion that the dearth of high level, black polticians is evidence that the electorate won't vote for them, cannot prove their assertion.

That's pretty much it. No problem.

snood wrote:

Which issue is that? Race? Race as it affects politics? Obama's chances of running for office in 08?

There are ample opportunities to exhibit racial indignation without trying to create one.

Lash wrote:

It appears that the contingent who forward the assertion that the dearth of high level, black polticians is evidence that the electorate won't vote for them, cannot prove their assertion.

That's pretty much it. No problem.

The burden of proof is upon you to prove the dearth of statewide black elected officials has nothing to do with racial prejudice.

Lash wrote:

Wrong. The assertion made was nimh's.

Funny, blackfolk have little problem getting elected when a large percentage of the electorate are other blackfolk.

Lash wrote:

Got some statistics to prove that, Miss No Black Governor?

It really amazes me when whitefolk claim that racism is a thing of the past.

Lash wrote:

That would amaze me, too!! Who did it?

snood wrote:

I guess if I can't prove something that most reasonable people would stipulate, like, oh let's see -there is still a lot of dicrimination against women in the workplace, that's supposed to mean something definitive, huh? Well, there's a whole boatload of things that cannot be proven here in this forum. And some things will settle into amiable disagreement, and some things get stirred far beyond their ability to offer stimulating discussion.

Snood, I wonder if you can provide an opinion on something I've always wondered about and had a theory about. It goes as follows:

I have not doubt that discrimination does exist, but one reason I think it may not exist to the extent that some may think it does is for the following reason. We all suffer disappointments, snubs, layoffs, and offenses in life. Examples are we don't get the job we think we deserve, we don't get service in a restaurant as quickly or as courteously as we think we deserve, and the list would go on infinitem. This is pretty much standard for everybody every day of our lives, regardless of race, gender, etc. Now, when each of us experience those things, how do we react to it? If we are pre-conditioned to expect discrimination and racism, it is my contention that we are much more likely to chalk it up to that reason. If we are not, we may simply look at it as explained by other reasons. For example, if service is lousy in a restaurant, we might think the person is just having a bad day, or she is tired and burned out with the job.

To make a long story short, there is such a thing as "self fulfilling prophecy." If you think you are going to be discriminated against, you will probably interpret many events as being due to that problem If not, you may instead see many of the effects of everyday life in a more correct manner. Don't get me wrong. Some events may be due to discrimination, but maybe in reality only 20% of the events are actually due to that problem rather than the 100% as perceived by some people.

I've not walked in your shoes, but this is something I've always wondered about. And I wonder if the same effect may apply to politics. If one approaches it without any pre-existing bias, the chance for success may actually be much higher than for those that do expect bias.

One reason I believe what I do about this is the fact that people of the black race from other countries, like Haiti, or even from Africa, do not have some of these expectations of discrimination and end up being much more successful as a group.

My post here is not meant to be confrontational or argumentive in any manner. I simply am curious about your opinion in regard to my point here.

I didn't say any issue was moot, snood.

Lash wrote:

It appears that the contingent who forward the assertion that the dearth of high level, black polticians is evidence that the electorate won't vote for them, cannot prove their assertion.

That's pretty much it. No problem.

The burden of proof is upon you to prove the dearth of statewide black elected officials has nothing to do with racial prejudice. Funny, blackfolk have little problem getting elected when a large percentage of the electorate are other blackfolk.

It really amazes me when whitefolk claim that racism is a thing of the past.
If they can't see it already, no amount of "proof" is going to convince them.

The "reasonable people" argument has never won on these pages. I didn't want to start a precedent.

But, I'm happy to leave it as an amiable disagreement. Nimh didn't seem to want to do that. I only followed it as far as he led with it.

At any rate, I hope this issue becomes moot, very soon.

Lash wrote:

The "reasonable people" argument has never won on these pages. I didn't want to start a precedent.

But, I'm happy to leave it as an amiable disagreement. Nimh didn't seem to want to do that. I only followed it as far as he led with it.

At any rate, I hope this issue becomes moot, very soon.

I hope this issue becomes moot, very soon.

It is sort of weird that you ask. Its what we've been talking about.

The disproportionate representation of blacks in state and national office.

I think Lash was saying that she HOPES it would become moot soon -- with, for example, the election of a black president.

(?)

I agree that re: okie's scenario it doesn't have to be either/or; it can be both. (That some people create a self-fulfilling prophecy, but that the discrimination exists independently of those people, as well.) (I've seen it at work in the Deaf community.)

Roxxxanne wrote:

Lash wrote:

It appears that the contingent who forward the assertion that the dearth of high level, black polticians is evidence that the electorate won't vote for them, cannot prove their assertion.

That's pretty much it. No problem.

The burden of proof is upon you to prove the dearth of statewide black elected officials has nothing to do with racial prejudice. Funny, blackfolk have little problem getting elected when a large percentage of the electorate are other blackfolk.

It really amazes me when whitefolk claim that racism is a thing of the past.
If they can't see it already, no amount of "proof" is going to convince them.

What's your ethnicity, Roxxxanne? You native American? And if I may be so bold, if you are, what percent are you native American?

snood wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:

Lash wrote:

It appears that the contingent who forward the assertion that the dearth of high level, black polticians is evidence that the electorate won't vote for them, cannot prove their assertion.

That's pretty much it. No problem.

The burden of proof is upon you to prove the dearth of statewide black elected officials has nothing to do with racial prejudice. Funny, blackfolk have little problem getting elected when a large percentage of the electorate are other blackfolk.

It really amazes me when whitefolk claim that racism is a thing of the past.
If they can't see it already, no amount of "proof" is going to convince them.

What's your ethnicity, Roxxxanne? You native American? And if I may be so bold, if you are, what percent are you native American?

I am an Oreo cookie in reverse, white on the outside and black on the inside. I have always felt more comfortable around black people than whites. It is rather hard to explain as I don't understand it myself.

sozobe wrote:

I think Lash was saying that she HOPES it would become moot soon -- with, for example, the election of a black president.

(?)

I agree that re: okie's scenario it doesn't have to be either/or; it can be both. (That some people create a self-fulfilling prophecy, but that the discrimination exists independently of those people, as well.) (I've seen it at work in the Deaf community.)

Sozobe, would the election of a black president render all former questions about existing disproportion in elected black officials moot, in your opinion?