Race Baiting and Barak Obama?

ltstanfo

Member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
578
Reaction score
42
Lately I have been hearing alot about perceptions of racisim against Barak Obama. Be it the news or some of my friends I frankly am surprised that the election process appears to be stooping so low.

Don't get me wrong... real racisim still exists around the world and likely (sadly) always will to some degree. But to "race bait" is just silly.

Rather than me try to espouse further, I found an article by Glenn Beck that pretty much sums it up for me.

As always, your mileage may vary. :-)

Regards,
Ltstanfo
 
ltstanfo said:
Lately I have been hearing alot about perceptions of racisim against Barak Obama. Be it the news or some of my friends I frankly am surprised that the election process appears to be stooping so low.

Don't get me wrong... real racisim still exists around the world and likely (sadly) always will to some degree. But to "race bait" is just silly.

I have had a hell of a week, and am still trying to adjust back to some sense of normal, but I feel compelled to respond to this.

If you think that accusations of racism against Senator Obama are overblown, you are seriously kidding yourself. The truth is that there is a hell of a lot of racism out there, some of it blatant, some of it more obscured. Having grown up in a white middle class neighborhood and attended mostly white schools, I myself did not really become quite as self-aware of the passive racism I was myself displaying until I got into the Army. But once I had some of my fellow grunts point it out to me, my eyes opened. Many of we white people have this head-in-the-sand idea of racism - if WE don't see it, it isn't there. But racism, like sexism in many ways, is often in the eye of the beholder.

I think another of the biggest problems regarding racism in this country is that the overwhelming majority of white people only recognize open, active racism (i.e. using the N word, joining the KKK) and fail to recognize more subdued, or more passive racism. I think most people, including myself, are guilty of this to one extent or another. But some of us are definitely worse than others. and a lack of self-awareness is one reason. For example, one thing that makes a lot of us look stupid (and it is so widespread that I have seen it referenced many times by black comedians and in movies) is the whole "I am not racist, I have a black friend" or "I always say hello to the black person at my office, so I know I can't be racist" or similar things. It's like Jamie Foxx said - and I am paraphrasing here - if you are counting how many black people have been to your house, you are a racist motherfucker. If you are in a car (with white people) watch what people do when you stop at a crosswalk. I have seen people lock their doors if a black guy was in the crosswalk, and do nothing if a white person was. Come on, this is Alabama, not Los Angeles, and that is definitely a passive form of racism.

But we go further than that too. Remember, like I said, racism is often in the eye of the beholder. So if you are black, and you hear white people constantly belittle the NAACP, or talk about how Martin Luther King Day should be celebrated as Lee-Jackson Day, or make fun of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and other black leaders non-stop, or that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery (but it's still all the abolitionists' fault) or say that Donovan McNabb is only getting attention because he's a black quarterback and not because he is any good, what are you going to think? What are you inclined to think? The column you put up by Glenn Beck is a great example. I know, you are probably thinking "but he says he isn't racist". Well, blaming the current economic crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act, and thus poor minorities (as many conservative commentators have explicitly done, such as Neil Cavuto on Fox and Ann Coulter in her columns), is racist, sorry. The CRA has very little to do with the current mortgage crisis, because the institutions most responsible for the bad loans - the independent mortgage lenders - are exempt from CRA. CRA did not make any financial institution offer no-down-payment mortgages, or force any banks to put commercials on TV encouraging Americans to use the value of their homes like an ATM machine so they can pay for their kids college, or buy a car, or take a vacation, or buy a boat. I saw plenty of those kinds of advertisements through my own bank, Regions, and many others. CRA did not do anything to undermine oversight of all these financial institutions. CRA had nothing to do with how these financial institutions turned bad mortgages into investments by bundling them together by the thousands into investment vehicles that concealed the exposure of the investments to these risky mortgages. I could go on and on, but I will save that for another time.

And having grown up here in the South, I know all the little tricks that we white people use to try to hide racism. I know all the little codes and catch phrases. So for example, when someone uses the word "uppity" to describe Senator and Mrs. Obama (and I have heard several people in the news say it), I don't care what the goddamn dictionary says, I know what it means. That's like someone saying "it's getting dark mighty early around here" when a black person enters the room, and then trying to argue about what the dictionary definition of those words are. Context is what matters. I know the goddamn context. Try to use the word "uppity" in reference to Senator Obama in conversation with any black person that you are friends with and see what happens.

I hope I am clear here, L., because I am not trying to put you on the spot. But I think you are giving many of your fellow conservatives WAY too much benefit of the doubt. I think that there are still a lot of people, Republicans AND Democrats, who still can't bring themselves to vote for a black man for any reason, and are willing to believe all sorts of bizarre bullshit like "he's really a Muslim" or "he pals around with terrorists" or "he's going to take away all our guns" in order to rationalize their illogical fear of him.
 
eleventhma said:
I hope I am clear here, L., because I am not trying to put you on the spot. But I think you are giving many of your fellow conservatives WAY too much benefit of the doubt. I think that there are still a lot of people, Republicans AND Democrats, who still can't bring themselves to vote for a black man for any reason, ...

And it all seems so bizarre to me because I'm having trouble seeing him as black. Every time I hear "could be the first black president" it takes me a second to figure out who they're talking about.

It's not like I can't tell if a person is black or not (well, except in the US sense where black means there was at least one black forebear within the last 4 to 8 generations). It's just that it doesn't form much of my mental model of a person.
 
ltstanfo said:
Rather than me try to espouse further, I found an article by Glenn Beck that pretty much sums it up for me.

As always, your mileage may vary. :-)
"Obama's very white, can I say that? He's very white" -- Glenn Beck
 
eleventhma said:
I have had a hell of a week, and am still trying to adjust back to some sense of normal, but I feel compelled to respond to this.

If you think that accusations of racism against Senator Obama are overblown, you are seriously kidding yourself. The truth is that there is a hell of a lot of racism out there, some of it blatant, some of it more obscured. Having grown up in a white middle class neighborhood and attended mostly white schools, I myself did not really become quite as self-aware of the passive racism I was myself displaying until I got into the Army. But once I had some of my fellow grunts point it out to me, my eyes opened. Many of we white people have this head-in-the-sand idea of racism - if WE don't see it, it isn't there. But racism, like sexism in many ways, is often in the eye of the beholder.

I think another of the biggest problems regarding racism in this country is that the overwhelming majority of white people only recognize open, active racism (i.e. using the N word, joining the KKK) and fail to recognize more subdued, or more passive racism. I think most people, including myself, are guilty of this to one extent or another. But some of us are definitely worse than others. and a lack of self-awareness is one reason. For example, one thing that makes a lot of us look stupid (and it is so widespread that I have seen it referenced many times by black comedians and in movies) is the whole "I am not racist, I have a black friend" or "I always say hello to the black person at my office, so I know I can't be racist" or similar things. It's like Jamie Foxx said - and I am paraphrasing here - if you are counting how many black people have been to your house, you are a racist motherfucker. If you are in a car (with white people) watch what people do when you stop at a crosswalk. I have seen people lock their doors if a black guy was in the crosswalk, and do nothing if a white person was. Come on, this is Alabama, not Los Angeles, and that is definitely a passive form of racism.

But we go further than that too. Remember, like I said, racism is often in the eye of the beholder. So if you are black, and you hear white people constantly belittle the NAACP, or talk about how Martin Luther King Day should be celebrated as Lee-Jackson Day, or make fun of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and other black leaders non-stop, or that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery (but it's still all the abolitionists' fault) or say that Donovan McNabb is only getting attention because he's a black quarterback and not because he is any good, what are you going to think? What are you inclined to think? The column you put up by Glenn Beck is a great example. I know, you are probably thinking "but he says he isn't racist". Well, blaming the current economic crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act, and thus poor minorities (as many conservative commentators have explicitly done, such as Neil Cavuto on Fox and Ann Coulter in her columns), is racist, sorry. The CRA has very little to do with the current mortgage crisis, because the institutions most responsible for the bad loans - the independent mortgage lenders - are exempt from CRA. CRA did not make any financial institution offer no-down-payment mortgages, or force any banks to put commercials on TV encouraging Americans to use the value of their homes like an ATM machine so they can pay for their kids college, or buy a car, or take a vacation, or buy a boat. I saw plenty of those kinds of advertisements through my own bank, Regions, and many others. CRA did not do anything to undermine oversight of all these financial institutions. CRA had nothing to do with how these financial institutions turned bad mortgages into investments by bundling them together by the thousands into investment vehicles that concealed the exposure of the investments to these risky mortgages. I could go on and on, but I will save that for another time.

And having grown up here in the South, I know all the little tricks that we white people use to try to hide racism. I know all the little codes and catch phrases. So for example, when someone uses the word "uppity" to describe Senator and Mrs. Obama (and I have heard several people in the news say it), I don't care what the goddamn dictionary says, I know what it means. That's like someone saying "it's getting dark mighty early around here" when a black person enters the room, and then trying to argue about what the dictionary definition of those words are. Context is what matters. I know the goddamn context. Try to use the word "uppity" in reference to Senator Obama in conversation with any black person that you are friends with and see what happens.

I hope I am clear here, L., because I am not trying to put you on the spot. But I think you are giving many of your fellow conservatives WAY too much benefit of the doubt. I think that there are still a lot of people, Republicans AND Democrats, who still can't bring themselves to vote for a black man for any reason, and are willing to believe all sorts of bizarre bullshit like "he's really a Muslim" or "he pals around with terrorists" or "he's going to take away all our guns" in order to rationalize their illogical fear of him.

Geoff,

I do hope you are feeling better but I have to disagree with you. I did not say racisim did not exist (we both know it does). But to imply that many / most are looking for some subliminal reason to vote against Barack is silly to me...

1. Saying he is a Muslim just shows a lack of intelligence / research on the part of the person saying it. Racist or not, this comment and those along the same lines is just ignorance at its worst.
2. He pals around with terrorists... while not entirely true this "statement" does have some (minimal) traction (IMO) as Bill Ayers does have a known history. Now saying that, I do have to give Obama a pass on this one since he is a product of the Chicago "Machine" and this was likely nothing more than a "cog event" in the machine.
3. He's going to take away all our guns - don't go there :-) You know that I do check my facts on this one. Barack is a known anti-gun politician and his record speaks to it very clearly. If it weren't for the fact that he wants votes and (thankfully) the supreme court just ruled in favor of individual gun rights Obama would likely still be openly supporting more gun legislation. Among his votes:

Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
Provide some "common-sense" enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
In 2000 he cosponsored a bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

I am not trying to put you on the spot but your responce (IMO) borders on the PC (which you know I have issues with) and not Geoff. Still, to each their own.

Regards,
Lee
 
ltstanfo said:
{snip} to imply that many / most are looking for some subliminal reason to vote against Barack is silly to me...

Unfortunately only November 4th will tell.

Considering Grampa Munster's continual creepyness and sliding in the polls, if McCain wins (giving that he'll most likely do as badly in the 3rd debate as he has in the prior two), IMHO that would be a very clear indication of an ignorance (if not racial) problem in the USofA.


Saying he is a Muslim just shows a lack of intelligence / research on the part of the person saying it. Racist or not, this comment and those along the same lines is just ignorance at its worst.

Agreed, but from first-hand, it took me a bit of looking around to get over the idea (and you guys pointing it out to me) so I'm afraid most people won't even look.

He pals around with terrorists... while not entirely true this "statement" does have some (minimal) traction (IMO) as Bill Ayers does have a known history. Now saying that, I do have to give Obama a pass on this one since he is a product of the Chicago "Machine" and this was likely nothing more than a "cog event" in the machine.

Some could make the same argument that McCain hangs out with Terrorists due to his continual palling around with Bush and/or Cheney.

At least Biden got it right when he called Cheney "an extremely dangerous individual"..

He's going to take away all our guns - don't go there :-) You know that I do check my facts on this one. Barack is a known anti-gun politician and his record speaks to it very clearly.

I'm not clairvoyant enough to say what he will, or won't do. There's no physical way they could physically "take away all our guns", but frankly with the economy, health care, social security, and -- let's not forget -- two wars going on, I'm of the belief that the government will be too busy -- at least short-term -- to deal with that issue.

Sleep soundly knowing that gun control will ultimately pass. Maybe not today, maybe not this decade, but eventually. The thing about it is, it won't come as part of a huge fiery debate on the hill. It won't come as a law from any president.

Gun control will silently slide into place overnight, hidden deep in the recesses of dozens of completely unrelated bills which are signed into law by necessity. Very similarly to how over half of the current energy bills in Congress were slid through the system as part of the 700 billion dollar "bailout of wall street".

Wayne
 
Wayne said:
I'm not clairvoyant enough to say what he will, or won't do. There's no physical way they could physically "take away all our guns", but frankly with the economy, health care, social security, and -- let's not forget -- two wars going on, I'm of the belief that the government will be too busy -- at least short-term -- to deal with that issue.

Sleep soundly knowing that gun control will ultimately pass. Maybe not today, maybe not this decade, but eventually. The thing about it is, it won't come as part of a huge fiery debate on the hill. It won't come as a law from any president.

Gun control will silently slide into place overnight, hidden deep in the recesses of dozens of completely unrelated bills which are signed into law by necessity. Very similarly to how over half of the current energy bills in Congress were slid through the system as part of the 700 billion dollar "bailout of wall street".

Wayne

I cannot say that eventual (full) gun control will not happen but hopefully I won't be alive if / when it does. However, I am comfortable in saying that as long as we have watchdog groups like NRA, The Knox Report, etc.. I think it would be nearly impossible to slip in such legislation. Past efforts to do so have been quickly identified and thankfully (mostly) defeated.

Regards,
Ltstanfo
 
ltstanfo said:
3.. He's going to take away all our guns - don't go there :-) You know that I do check my facts on this one. Barack is a known anti-gun politician and his record speaks to it very clearly. If it weren't for the fact that he wants votes and (thankfully) the supreme court just ruled in favor of individual gun rights Obama would likely still be openly supporting more gun legislation.
Gun owners do back Obama. The citing you have is important. A noteable item you did not cite was the DC court ruling. Obama came out and said he supported their decision. The DC court ruling made it clear that gun ownership is an indivdual right. In addition, Obama can't do this on his own. He has to have Congress pass a law for him to sign. This is unlikely as a significant # of Dems are pro-guns and of course all Republicans are. Simply there is no support for this. In addition, if a law made it that far the current make up of the Supreme Court would over turn it. I'm confident my rifles, shotgun, and handguns are safe. The NRA's position is against Obama. They seem to ignore the Supreme Court ruling in favor of partisan politics. I didn't renew my membership with them and am now glad I did. They're tactics are akin to PETA on the left wing side. Both have/are turned into extreme fringe support groups.
 
@eleventhma:

That was a very interesting and thought provoking post.

Thank you. :pint:
 
faethor said:
Gun owners do back Obama. The citing you have is important. A noteable item you did not cite was the DC court ruling. Obama came out and said he supported their decision. The DC court ruling made it clear that gun ownership is an indivdual right. In addition, Obama can't do this on his own. He has to have Congress pass a law for him to sign. This is unlikely as a significant # of Dems are pro-guns and of course all Republicans are. Simply there is no support for this. In addition, if a law made it that far the current make up of the Supreme Court would over turn it. I'm confident my rifles, shotgun, and handguns are safe. The NRA's position is against Obama. They seem to ignore the Supreme Court ruling in favor of partisan politics. I didn't renew my membership with them and am now glad I did. They're tactics are akin to PETA on the left wing side. Both have/are turned into extreme fringe support groups.

Umm... no. I presume you mean this Ray Schoenke? The same one who is considered by the Brady Campaign to be "complimentary" to their own goals? Pro Guns for Obama? I think not.

To be sure everyone is entitled to their opinions but you might have checked other viewpoints before you suggested that AHSA was "pro gun" or that gun owners support Obama:

Buckeye Firearms Org

Of Arms And The Law

Wiki entry for AHSA

And lastly, just for you faethor:

Gun Law News where they specifically call out: "Already the Citizens for a Safe Minnesota is trumpeting the AHSA organization (as if it really was) saying that 'Sportsmen fed up with the NRA'.


As for Obama, let's clarify his "position" (and recall my previous post in the process):

Town Hall on Obama and Guns

The NRA has certainly done it's share of self inflicted wounds ("jack booted thugs" comes to mind... and that episode cost them) but I don't think they are wrong on Obama. Your mileage may vary. ;-)

Regards,
Ltstanfo
 
ltstanfo said:
And lastly, just for you faethor:
Gun Law News where they specifically call out: "Already the Citizens for a Safe Minnesota is trumpeting the AHSA organization (as if it really was) saying that 'Sportsmen fed up with the NRA'.
I think the problem comes in here with those that think this issue is black or white -- guns or no guns. Instead there are shades of grey like most issues. Ending Gun violence is a good thing. IMO it'll never be ended if Guns are around. However, I consider Citzens for a Safe Minnesota akin to M.A.D.D. Mother's against drunk driving is for ending drunk driving. However, they do it by increasing penalties on those involved in the incident not by promoting prohibition. CfaSM are similar. They don't promote a prohibition on guns. Instead they promote legislation to increase penalities on those involved in the action and promote responsible ownership.

For example, they're against people with mental illinesses owning guns. They want background checks on gun transactions to help keep guns out of hands of felons. They want laws that owners of guns report thefts so police have an understanding of the weapons that are now uncontrolled in their enfironment. They promote using trigger locks and gun safes to keep them out of the hands of unsupervised children. These are good things and don't restrict ownership nor restrict responsible uses of guns such as target practice and hunting.

As for Obama, let's clarify his "position" (and recall my previous post in the process):
Don't forget Obama also sided with pro-gun right activists by voting to prohibit the confiscation of guns during times of crisis. Such as we saw guns rounded up illegally in Katrina. Obama took hits from his own party for not being as liberal as Hillary on this issue, as she approved of the gun confiscation.

Obama has come out stating he believes in individual's right to own and use guns responsibly. Thinking Obama is stricly pro-gun control is an oversimplification. This is the NRA's problem. They act as if the Supreme Court hasn't recently estabalished the right of individual ownership, they have. They go to extremes claiming Obama is for removing the rights of gun owners to protect their home. NRA's ads are partisan twisting of what they claim as 'we believe our facts'. Of course if they were facts then no belief is needed.

With the the pro-gun Dems and the significant # of Republicans in Congress no bill would even make it to his desk. If he signed such a law he'd spell his own and his party's reelection doom. The current Supreme Court would over rule it in an instance.

As a gun owner checking this out and being concerned is important as it's an important issue. Running in fear that he's coming for our guns is approaching lunacy, IMO.

SO -- back to the subject here...
Race Baiting. I don't know if the article is even was worth my read as it comes from Glenn Beck who has shown his racism in many ways, one of which was calling Obama very white.
 
Faethor,

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you on this one. Somehow I missed your last reply and the topic fell of off my webpage.

faethor said:
I think the problem comes in here with those that think this issue is black or white -- guns or no guns. Instead there are shades of grey like most issues.

Unfortunately this issue IS black or white. I believe that political history has demonstrated that efforts for gun control (at the federal level) resort to incrementalism (sp?) when a full out drive fails (brady bill for example). Now if Minnesota wants to incrementaly add gun laws to existing laws that is their business and I have nothing to say about that. My issue is with federal efforts to legislate guns.

A recent New York Times article highlights some proposed / ongoing state level gun legislation efforts.

faethor said:
Ending Gun violence is a good thing. IMO it'll never be ended if Guns are around. However, I consider Citzens for a Safe Minnesota akin to M.A.D.D. Mother's against drunk driving is for ending drunk driving. However, they do it by increasing penalties on those involved in the incident not by promoting prohibition. CfaSM are similar. They don't promote a prohibition on guns. Instead they promote legislation to increase penalities on those involved in the action and promote responsible ownership.

In general principle I have no issue with what you said above hoever the word "responsible" (gun ownership) has such a vast meaning in gun legislation circles that it should make gun owners nervous. The Brady Campain is (in)famous for their "responsible" efforts. Here again, if you want such in Minnesota, go for it.

faethor said:
For example, they're against people with mental illinesses owning guns. They want background checks on gun transactions to help keep guns out of hands of felons. They want laws that owners of guns report thefts so police have an understanding of the weapons that are now uncontrolled in their enfironment. They promote using trigger locks and gun safes to keep them out of the hands of unsupervised children. These are good things and don't restrict ownership nor restrict responsible uses of guns such as target practice and hunting.

Let's look at what you just listed...
1. Mental illness clause - currently a federal (as well as optional state level) law that is supported by NRA. Current law bars people judged by a court to be "mentally incompetent" from purchasing firearms, but the federal background check database (aka NICS) is incomplete, with many states far behind in automating their records and sending them to the FBI. So why add new laws when it might be better / faster / easier to see first what it takes to make existing work? This might be an example of incrementalism.
2. Background checks (felon possession) - already exists (NICS). What additional legislation are they looking for? Here again.. at first blush this might be incrementalism (IMO).
3. Report stolen firearms - Some states (California comes to mind) do require this but I am unaware if this is a federal law (probably not). I have no issue with this principle but I would definitly want to see the language before I would support. Again...currently a state option. On a personal note, I would hope all would report stolen firearms... if only to get the insurance check so I can replace (and yes I do insure my collection).
4. Trigger locks / gun safes - currently a state option (again California comes to mind). I do have issues with this one specifically because a trigger lock *MIGHT* deter my ability to respond to a break in. Time does matter, regardless of what the press reports. I do believe that parents should be responsible with firearms around children (be it trigger locks or safes) but I cannot support a manditory law requiring such. On a personal note, I do have gun safes and use them but I'm also ready to renovate the layout of the house. :wink:


faethor said:
Don't forget Obama also sided with pro-gun right activists by voting to prohibit the confiscation of guns during times of crisis. Such as we saw guns rounded up illegally in Katrina. Obama took hits from his own party for not being as liberal as Hillary on this issue, as she approved of the gun confiscation.

One vote does not a record break...

faethor said:
Obama has come out stating he believes in individual's right to own and use guns responsibly. Thinking Obama is stricly pro-gun control is an oversimplification. This is the NRA's problem. They act as if the Supreme Court hasn't recently estabalished the right of individual ownership, they have. They go to extremes claiming Obama is for removing the rights of gun owners to protect their home. NRA's ads are partisan twisting of what they claim as 'we believe our facts'. Of course if they were facts then no belief is needed.

I disagree. There is no oversimplification (IMO). Obama did support removing the rights of gun owners to protect their home...in his home state... see my previous post on this topic for the list. In this regard I do not find the NRA's ads to be partisan.

faethor said:
With the the pro-gun Dems and the significant # of Republicans in Congress no bill would even make it to his desk. If he signed such a law he'd spell his own and his party's reelection doom. The current Supreme Court would over rule it in an instance.

While I would like to believe that statement I cannot support it as a clear and simple fact. Yes, they may be hesitant to try in the near future (even politicians have -short- memories) but it is simply a question of time... be it an effort on the firearm itself or something ancillary like a limit / ban on ammo, purchases per month, etc... and this is incrementalism (gun conrol).

faethor said:
As a gun owner checking this out and being concerned is important as it's an important issue. Running in fear that he's coming for our guns is approaching lunacy, IMO.

We definitely disagree then. Again, to each their own. 8)

faethor said:
SO -- back to the subject here...
Race Baiting. I don't know if the article is even was worth my read as it comes from Glenn Beck who has shown his racism in many ways, one of which was calling Obama very white.

Ummm... I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why that statement is racial / racist. :?

Regards,
Ltstanfo
 
I thought the discussion was about how much racism was directed against Barack Obama. I thought the discussion of whether or not Glenn Beck was a racist was just a tangent.

But to get back to that original subject, yes, there is a lot of racism directed against Barack Obama. And yeah, it isn't too hard for anyone with a camera to go out and find some racists at McCain Palin rallies, but I am talking about something more than that, not just a few bad apples.

Some of it is pretty blatant, like this.

From a Republican women's group in California - http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stor ... 67d4a.html

A button sold at the Texas State Republican convention -http://www.buzzfeed.com/jonah/racist-anti-obama-pin

A new nickname for Obama appearing at Free Republic
http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/arc ... mbo-obama/

"Alligator bait" reference at the GOP National Convention
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-78081

These must be some of the folks who voted to keep the Alabama law banning interracial marriage
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/us/po ... ref=slogin

That is just what I was able to find in a few minutes of looking on the web. I am willing to bet there is a lot more out there.
 
ltstanfo said:
faethor said:
SO -- back to the subject here...
Race Baiting. I don't know if the article is even was worth my read as it comes from Glenn Beck who has shown his racism in many ways, one of which was calling Obama very white.

Ummm... I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why that statement is racial / racist. :?
I'll try to explain to you. Example.. Minnesota is very white. -- This statement is infrequently heard. It's a statement of observation as Minnesota has less ethnic diversity than many other states. As such we are mainly caucasian. In this context it could be seen as not racist but an observation of the population.

However, calling someone, like Obama, that has black heritage 'very white' is something different in use. It's not an observation on his heritage. It's not an observation on his skin tone. What the user is commenting on is behaviorisms. The user is using an unstated premise that white people act in one sort of way and black people act in another sort of white. It's racist to classify actions of people by their race.

Beck's statement means that Obama, a black person or half black to give him the benefit of the doubt, doesn't qualify as black because he acts so very white.

About a year ago Bill O'Reilly went through a similar bout. He stated something to the effect of how well behaved the blacks were in a New York resteraunt. This is a surprise to Bill, who thought it important enough to comment on it, Why? This would only be important if his default belief is that the blacks aren't well behaved, therefore this activity is extraordinary.

Racism is a belief inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement. Beck's usage clearly fell in with this definition. Obama must have succeeded because he was very white. It's not much different from the racist stereotype that all blacks love watermelon and fried chicken.
 
I can't believe I almost forgot about this example

Rush Limbaugh played a song called "Barack the Magic Negro" on his show a while back. I think it was about a year and a half ago, but I can't be exactly sure. Anyway, the song was done by a white man singing in such a way that brought up all sorts of black stereotypes. It's pretty ugly, to put it mildly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfxVkLhlu5s
 
Re: I can't believe I almost forgot about this example

eleventhma said:
Rush Limbaugh played a song called "Barack the Magic Negro" on his show a while back. I think it was about a year and a half ago, but I can't be exactly sure. Anyway, the song was done by a white man singing in such a way that brought up all sorts of black stereotypes. It's pretty ugly, to put it mildly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfxVkLhlu5s

I've heard that song several times Geoff and I do not regard it as racist. Yes, it plays to stereotypes but perhaps you are missing the original intent of the (parody) song. As you may recall from our previous discussions, Rush did not coin that phrase, it was coined by a reporter from the LA Times.

Also, for reference here is the Wiki entry.

Rush's musical parody guy (a DJ if I recall correctly) just took the ball and ran with it. Funny how everyone (and I do not mean you) seems to forget where the term came from (with regards to Obama) that started it all... even Spike Lee had a variation on the term back in 2001.

To quote officer Barbrady from South Park, "Move along people... nothing to see here".

Regards,
Ltstanfo
 
I'm glad that both of us appear to agree on the word "context" Faethor. What we appear to disagree on is how it is used. In this case I do not see Beck saying anything offensive. Obviously opinions vary. Had the comment come from another black I would be inclined to agree with you. Had the comment come from the KKK I would agree with you. Had the comment come from (the late) Jesse Helms, I would agree with you.

I view Beck's comment (in this case) as making a statement of similarity (IMO between Beck and Obama) and nothing more.

I do not refer specifically to you but I find such (over) caution with words / statements and "context" to be a sad refletion on the state of political correctness in our country today.

While I am not trying to make a straw man arguement, I would offer (as an example) Clarence Thomas as a comparison. Both he an Obama are successful, established, political, outspoken and visible black men. Both could be construed as "being white" and I would not necessarily view that text as being racial in nature (again depending on context and who said it). Perhaps I am being somewhat naive (sp?) but I think that people often over react to what "the pundits" (let alone the average person) say.

Your mileage may vary. In any event, thanks for offerring your view on this.

Regards,
Ltstanfo



faethor said:
I'll try to explain to you. Example.. Minnesota is very white. -- This statement is infrequently heard. It's a statement of observation as Minnesota has less ethnic diversity than many other states. As such we are mainly caucasian. In this context it could be seen as not racist but an observation of the population.

However, calling someone, like Obama, that has black heritage 'very white' is something different in use. It's not an observation on his heritage. It's not an observation on his skin tone. What the user is commenting on is behaviorisms. The user is using an unstated premise that white people act in one sort of way and black people act in another sort of white. It's racist to classify actions of people by their race.

Beck's statement means that Obama, a black person or half black to give him the benefit of the doubt, doesn't qualify as black because he acts so very white.

About a year ago Bill O'Reilly went through a similar bout. He stated something to the effect of how well behaved the blacks were in a New York resteraunt. This is a surprise to Bill, who thought it important enough to comment on it, Why? This would only be important if his default belief is that the blacks aren't well behaved, therefore this activity is extraordinary.

Racism is a belief inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement. Beck's usage clearly fell in with this definition. Obama must have succeeded because he was very white. It's not much different from the racist stereotype that all blacks love watermelon and fried chicken.
 
Back
Top