Quote from: jgantsWhile I thought the speech was the most honest speech about race relations that's been said in decades, I find it sad that he even has to give it.

Let's face it, his crazy minister buddy may be a bit off the handle, but he's essentially right.  This country was born out of racism and remains a cesspool of racism.

I'm confused - if the country is a cesspool of racism (I think you're wrong, but let's assume you're correct), why wouldn't he have to give this speech and say these things?

Look, you don't get it both ways. Either it's a big deal he's the first black candidate to get this far and have this much of a chance, or it's not. If it is, then race is an issue that has to be addressed - is he this popular because he represents the new perspective that moves beyond the old resentments or is he this popular because people are voting to have a black candidate that will provide redress for the source of all these old rages. I think his appeal is that he's presented himself as the former, and the the good reverend seems to hint that perhaps it's not as clear.

If it's not a big deal that he's black, well, then we've moved beyond race in a way heretofore unseen on the large political scene - and you're assumption of a racism cesspool are, indeed, incorrect.

Quote from: jgantsJust look at how perfect Obama has to be - not even his friends can even hint of being an angry black person before all of a sudden he's losing white votes left and right.  It's absurd - people should care less what his minister has to say.  What on Earth does that have to do with him?

In some ways I see a portion of the white support for Obama as a declaration, once and for all, that we're past it. "Look, we get it. But we're all in this thing together, now. Let's move beyond those old hatreds because they only drag us down. Let's find way to solve problems for everyone." That's fine for some, but I suspect there are some folks who don't want to move past it - some for good reason, likely. The good reverend represents that portion of the population. And it says to those people of pallor that perhaps electing him will not help get beyond it.

Quote from: jgantsAnd so what if Obama really was a bit angry?  Why is it that the majority in America get nervous except when around "non-threating" blacks like Tiger Woods or Colin Powell?  Are we Americans really so pathetic as to be frightened that people of other races might actually catch a break if we had a black president?

Self-interest will trump racism. Why should I elect someone who is going to go against my self interest by helping that group over there. Who cares what color their skin is - why are they "catching a break" while I struggle with a part time job, etc? Tiger Woods and Colin Powell don't concern people because they aren't in a position, or running for one, that could institute policies that affect them - using race and redress as a justification for actions that work against peoples' self interest.

Quote from: jgantsChrist, it's not like even Al Sharpton as president would have instituted white slavery or something.  What is it that people are so afraid of?  That a few rich guys might actually have to pay reparations back to the families of the people they exploited in order to get their inherited wealth in the first place?

Ahhh...reparations. Who pays? How much? Do I? On my side, my family never participated in owning slaves - didn't come over until, I think, the late 19th/early 20th century at the earliest. My wife's family didn't come over until the 50's. Who gets paid?

The moment you bring up reparations, you've lost the election.  Doesn't matter if it's "a few rich guys" or not - it's done.

Having said all that, it's why I was zeroed in on the second quote provided. He's pointing out how there are a lot of folks of pallor in this country who look at anything related to race and say "WTF? I'm struggling here, I don't have time to worry about race." It's the other side of the discussion that rarely gets a voice when race is discussed in this country. I thing that had to be said to have any credibility on the subject. And for that, he gets some respect form me.

Alas, I disagree with him on policy, and so I can't vote for him.

Quote from: Kyle AaronIt's a 35 minute speech, and it's treating the listeners as though they were adults.

Amazingly, if you take a few words from a half-hour speech, it don't look too good. It's a bit like taking the last 100 posts from Spike, picking two or three sentences from them, and saying, "look at how unreasonable this guy is!"

Read or listen to it.
.

Oh I intend to.  It came at a bad time for me WRT time to read something that only interests me because it's a hot topic, but yes, I will get to it eventually.

However:

A 'few words' out of a lot is not an excuse.  The fact that my grandfather has only said 'wetback' to me perhaps twice in the twenty plus years we've been having meaningful conversations does not change the fact that he is comfortable casually slinging around terms that are patently offensive.  That its only a 'few words' out of many is meaningless.

No one, here or elsewhere, has yet to suggest that Obama's speech contains more than that one exerpt (Jong isn't the only one to quote that bit, incidentally, it's also the bit that appeared in a local newspaper), which certainly suggests to me that out of 35 minutes of speaking... with the intent of lessoning the damages to his campain by his assosation with Rev. Wright, that was the meatiest thing he said.

And it's worthless.  Its less than an excuse. It appears to be a well disguised, slightly apologetic endorsement.   And because he is charming and charismatic and articulate, people eat it up like candy.  


Hell, I'm glad you like him. Good for you. But last time I checked, Jimbo, you don't live here. You don't have to live with the potential consequences of your choice.  In essence you are telling me what is best for me, and rather smugly at that.

Would you like it if I started telling YOU how to vote in Australia?  Do you REALLY want Americans to start weighing in on Austrilian politics, telling you what you SHOULD be doing?

And you accuse us of arrogance.

Quote from: SpikeHell, I'm glad you like him. Good for you. But last time I checked, Jimbo, you don't live here. You don't have to live with the potential consequences of your choice.

Uh...regarding the President of the United States?  Pretty much everyone on the the planet has an abiding interest in who's in the office and what he or she does while there, and has to live with the consequences. The only thing Kyle lacks in this matter is the right to cast a ballot.

!i!

Quote from: James J SkachI'm confused - if the country is a cesspool of racism (I think you're wrong, but let's assume you're correct), why wouldn't he have to give this speech and say these things?

The purpose of his speech isn't to address racism so much as it is to calm down whitey and try and show he's not one of those blacks.

Quote from: James J SkachLook, you don't get it both ways. Either it's a big deal he's the first black candidate to get this far and have this much of a chance, or it's not. If it is, then race is an issue that has to be addressed - is he this popular because he represents the new perspective that moves beyond the old resentments or is he this popular because people are voting to have a black candidate that will provide redress for the source of all these old rages. I think his appeal is that he's presented himself as the former, and the the good reverend seems to hint that perhaps it's not as clear.

If it's not a big deal that he's black, well, then we've moved beyond race in a way heretofore unseen on the large political scene - and you're assumption of a racism cesspool are, indeed, incorrect.

Obama's candidacy is historic because he's black.  But that doesn't mean that there still aren't problems of racism in the country - my point was how he has to be the perfect black candidate.  How any hint that he might not be directly descended from the Bill Cosby school of non-threatening blacks sends shivers through the white community.

Look, the reverend is clearly off the deep end.  No question.  However, that doesn't mean that older generations of blacks aren't still a bit bitter after going though everything they went through.

Has there been progress?  Undoubtedly.  Is there reverse racism?  Absolutely.  Is some of it justified?  Yes.

We've still got a long, long ways to go.  Racism is still a major problem in this country.  And I don't just mean the overt racism - like when I still hear people talking about mixed-race relationships as "disgusting".  I mean the subtle racism - where black people are much more likely to have poorer schools, poorer communities, a more difficult time getting a job / phone / loan / even a bank account.

Quote from: James J SkachIn some ways I see a portion of the white support for Obama as a declaration, once and for all, that we're past it. "Look, we get it. But we're all in this thing together, now. Let's move beyond those old hatreds because they only drag us down. Let's find way to solve problems for everyone." That's fine for some, but I suspect there are some folks who don't want to move past it - some for good reason, likely. The good reverend represents that portion of the population. And it says to those people of pallor that perhaps electing him will not help get beyond it.

I think voting for Obama just because he's black would be silly.  People should either vote for him because they think he'd make a good president (based on his personality/ideas/policies/etc), or vote for someone else because they think they'd make a better president.  Until we get to the point where people don't even see a candidate's race/gender, we still have a ways to go.

As for "reverse racism", it's important to remember that it is not the same as racism.  There's a big difference between someone who's mad at you for no reason, and someone who's mad over past injustices to them.  I think people need to try and be a little more understanding that minorities in general do have some legitimate reasons for their beefs (and, yes, they do need to get over them - but that can take awhile).

Quote from: James J SkachSelf-interest will trump racism. Why should I elect someone who is going to go against my self interest by helping that group over there. Who cares what color their skin is - why are they "catching a break" while I struggle with a part time job, etc? Tiger Woods and Colin Powell don't concern people because they aren't in a position, or running for one, that could institute policies that affect them - using race and redress as a justification for actions that work against peoples' self interest.

So I should only ever vote for middle-aged white guys then, since they will be looking out for me better than anyone else.  By that logic, I guess I should support "white power" type candidates - they'll really be looking out for my interests, right?

Quote from: James J SkachAhhh...reparations. Who pays? How much? Do I? On my side, my family never participated in owning slaves - didn't come over until, I think, the late 19th/early 20th century at the earliest. My wife's family didn't come over until the 50's. Who gets paid?

The moment you bring up reparations, you've lost the election.  Doesn't matter if it's "a few rich guys" or not - it's done.

That's my point, exactly.  Why the big fear?  It's not likely any candidate, even if elected, would ever do it.

And even if they did, it'd be a huge bureaucratic mess where some people might get an extra check back from the government a year or more later after filling out dozens of forms (if you thought it was hard for Katrina victims or 9/11 victims to get money...)  It's not like anyone's going to send you or me a bill.

Quote from: James J SkachHaving said all that, it's why I was zeroed in on the second quote provided. He's pointing out how there are a lot of folks of pallor in this country who look at anything related to race and say "WTF? I'm struggling here, I don't have time to worry about race." It's the other side of the discussion that rarely gets a voice when race is discussed in this country. I thing that had to be said to have any credibility on the subject. And for that, he gets some respect form me.

I agree.  He pointed out two truths usually left unsaid - that working class whites have no big advantages, and that blacks are (rightfully) a bit resentful.  As long as everyone on all sides accept both truths, we do have a chance to move beyond these issues.  The problem has usually been each side not seeing the others' POV.

Quote from: James J SkachAlas, I disagree with him on policy, and so I can't vote for him.

And that is a perfect reason not to.  There are plenty of good reasons not to vote for him - lack of experience, policy issues, etc.  The fact a friend of his thinks we're white devils just isn't one of them.

Quote from: SpikeWould you like it if I started telling YOU how to vote in Australia?  Do you REALLY want Americans to start weighing in on Austrilian politics, telling you what you SHOULD be doing?

I don't care what you say, Spike, but the plain truth is that the US has a huge influence over Australian politics, and most Australians know it. It's the same as ever, as a band called Redgum says:

When the convicts arrived in Australia
The soldiers didn't have a lot to do
So for entertainment they made the convicts dance
While the soldiers piped a tune

It was the British domination quickstep
Quick step up your work, listen to the beat
They've got the power in their hands
And the load off their feet

100 years later, the governor was still on his seat
The people were farming and mining
The cockies ate the chaff
While the squatters ate the wheat

Two World Wars later, Rule Britannia began to die
Pig Iron Bob rocked the cradle
Yankee Doodle was the nation's lullaby

It's the Yankee domination quickstep
Quick step up your work, listen to the beat
They've got the power in their hands
And the load off their feet

It's now the foreign domination quickstep
Quick step up your work, listen to the beat
They've got the power in their hands
And the load off their feet

Quote from: jgantsAs for "reverse racism", it's important to remember that it is not the same as racism.  There's a big difference between someone who's mad at you for no reason, and someone who's mad over past injustices to them.  I think people need to try and be a little more understanding that minorities in general do have some legitimate reasons for their beefs (and, yes, they do need to get over them - but that can take awhile).

There is no such thing as "reverse" racism.  There is only racism.  It's wrong, no matter the side from which it comes.

Quote from: KenHRThere is no such thing as "reverse" racism.  There is only racism.  It's wrong, no matter the side from which it comes.

Thank you! Yes.

BTW-in Alabama I am Black...if you have ever met me you would  know just how insanely funny that is.

Bill

Jgants:

Here is the thing of it as best I am able to say.  Of course no 'angry black man' would get elected, and nor should they, any more than a 'racist redneck' should be elected.   Its the same sort of damning quality, regardless of the color of skin its directed at.

An 'angry black man' is coming in with a chip on his shoulder against a vast portion of his electorate.  His policies will, naturally, reflect his biases.  

While I'm no friend of pacifism, I have to admit that Ghandi (and King) had the right of it, you can not destroy anger by returning anger.  

So, yes: To be a 'perfect black candidate' he has to show he's not inclined to racially motivated anger.  Its tragic that he has to prove himself here, where other (white) politicians just have to avoid putting their foot into it, but given the justifiable reasons for that anger, and the inclinations of people to worry about revenge... that's just how it is.  

If Clinton (bill) were to run again, somehow, he would have to 'prove' he's not a philanderer, while other politicians don't.  There is justifiable reason to suspect him of it.  

Ken said it better and shorter, but I am afraid he was to breif, and easier to dismiss.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaUh...regarding the President of the United States?  Pretty much everyone on the the planet has an abiding interest in who's in the office and what he or she does while there, and has to live with the consequences. The only thing Kyle lacks in this matter is the right to cast a ballot.

!i!

First of all, mostly he only has to worry about the influence of the POTUS in regards to foriegn policy, not nearly so much Domestic.

Never mind that you are missing that the reverse is true, though obviously in lesser ways.

The government of Australia still makes policy decisions regarding trade, which affects the US economy. They make decisions regarding wether or not to support the coalition efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, which affects the US militarily.  They decide to open trade with Cuba and it affects our foriegn policy decision to embargo Cuba.

No nation is unaffected by the leadership of other nations. True, the US may have a larger footprint than Australia, but that's a matter of decreasing importance with the rise of China and the resurgance of a revitalized Russia on the horizon.

It doesn't mean its still polite for them to smuggly tell us who we should be voting for, particularly in a case like this where the primary impact will be at home.  The US pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan will not grossly affect Australia.  The few thousand soldiers they have fighting (less than the population of a small town) will return home, and thats about it.

But if Obama's nebulous 'plan' is put in motion domestically, there is evidence that our taxes will rise significantly... though since he's promised not to raise taxes (as I recall) to pay for his programs, there are chances it will fail, or money will be taken from existing services we hold dear. If Al-Quida DOES view a pull out as a victory and a chance to pull their OWN surge, then their targets wouldn't be Australia, they'd be in the US.

So: No, he wouldn't really have to live with the consequences of that choice in any meaningful way, though he IS likely to reap the reward he wants (less US involvement in the world militarily).

So: No, I don't want his advice on how to vote, any more that he would want mine.

Quote from: KenHRThere is no such thing as "reverse" racism.  There is only racism.  It's wrong, no matter the side from which it comes.

The way I'd put it is: there's only oppression and exploitation, and 'racism' is one expression of that.

Quote from: SpikeKen said it better and shorter, but I am afraid he was to breif, and easier to dismiss.

Actually, I only said it shorter.  You said it better.  My original post was getting long, but only concerned my personal experiences with race relations, which are not germane to the thread topic.

Quote from: SpikeThe government of Australia still makes policy decisions regarding trade, which affects the US economy. They make decisions regarding whether or not to support the coalition efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, which affects the US militarily.  They decide to open trade with Cuba and it affects our foreign policy decision to embargo Cuba.

I think it would be truer to say that the Australian govt makes those decisions after consulting Washington. And Australian presence in your wars is, as you point out, largely symbolic. Australia is militarily of value to the US mainly as a safe missile, communications and refuelling base.

I think we should just become the 51st state and be done with it, but that view's not popular.

QuoteIt doesn't mean its still polite for them to smuggly tell us who we should be voting for, particularly in a case like this where the primary impact will be at home.

Since when did you become Mr Manners?

Quote from: droogI think we should just become the 51st state and be done with it, but that view's not popular.

Why would Australia want to become Canada?  You have nicer weather, and more beaches.

Quote from: StuartWhy would Australia want to become Canada?  You have nicer weather, and more beaches.

Imagine the tourist dollars!

Look at you guys arguing about who gets to be 51st...




When everyone knows that's Puerto Rico.