Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why would they want a minority leader? The point is not about wanting an ethnic minority as a leader for the sake of being a minority, it is about having the most qualified leader regardless of their origin.
According to your logic, the following would be reasonable expressions:
"Oh, we are supposed to be a melting pot, better elect the dark one.", or "Oh, well, I live in Sweden, and Swede's are White, So I cannot vote for a party led by a Black man because Swedish leaders are supposed to be White.
Only a mentally deficient person would use such reasoning.
OK, so just because you are quick handing out derogatory comments, it doesn't necessarily make you look smart.
What is "the most qualified" leader to begin with?
There are tonnes of them out there - it's not like they are *rocket scientists,* who are either capable of math and science or not. The definition of "the most qualified" *rocket scientist* is far more objective than the definition of "the most qualified" leader in nowadays. There are enough people I'm sure in Democratic party who could be as qualified as Obama for the leadership, but the truth to be told - part of the reason that the choice fall on him is precisely because he is Black. Why? Because America has racial issues that are going back in history - the kind of problems that Europe doesn't have. And Europe doesn't have these issues, precisely because European nations never claimed to be the "melting pot," and neither their nations were ever based on the idea of the "melting pot." So they don't have the agenda of *patching things up* in a way that America has it. That's why they neither want nor need a minority leader in the same manner as America does.
Me personally - I happen to like Obama; I like his personality enough, that I went out of my way to vote for him another day. But do I think that he is "the most qualified leader" that's out there?
I don't; if fact I wouldn't have seen a big difference if Biden ( for example) was doing his job.
But I do understand that part of a choice was precisely because Obama is Black, and I accept it as a good thing, taking in consideration that we are talking about the United States.
OK, so just because you are quick handing out derogatory comments, it doesn't necessarily make you look smart.
What is "the most qualified" leader to begin with?
There are tonnes of them out there - it's not like they are *rocket scientists,* who are either capable of math and science or not. The definition of "the most qualified" *rocket scientist* is far more objective than the definition of "the most qualified" leader in nowadays. There are enough people I'm sure in Democratic party who could be as qualified as Obama for the leadership, but the truth to be told - part of the reason that the choice fall on him is precisely because he is Black. Why? Because America has racial issues that are going back in history - the kind of problems that Europe doesn't have. And Europe doesn't have these issues, precisely because European nations never claimed to be the "melting pot," and neither their nations were ever based on the idea of the "melting pot." So they don't have the agenda of *patching things up* in a way that America has it. That's why they neither want nor need a minority leader in the same manner as America does.
Me personally - I happen to like Obama; I like his personality enough, that I went out of my way to vote for him another day. But do I think that he is "the most qualified leader" that's out there?
I don't; if fact I wouldn't have seen a big difference if Biden ( for example) was doing his job.
But I do understand that part of a choice was precisely because Obama is Black, and I accept it as a good thing, taking in consideration that we are talking about the United States.
A lot of European countries had colonies (these were not forced upon them, rather the other way round). Also countries like Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Germany actively sought after immigrant labour (Belgium for example had an official deal with Marroco to set up recruitment agencies in the fifties and sixties). So official policies in European countries did bring about our own meltinpots.
Our white inhabitants by the way are less homogenious than you seem to realize! culturally- (Britain; Northren Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England) and language-wise (Switzerland (german, italian, french and roman speakers) Belgium (dutch, french and german speakers), Spain (Basks,Catalans, ...) are the most obvious examples you would think of nowadays BUT also the quintessential nation-state France was the result of a succesfull but nonetheless artificial unifieing proces over centuries with the result that French Bask are more french than spanish basks are spanish); religion-wise (the netherlands and Germany are fit examples here)
So I basically don't agree with your assesment of European nationalism
PS: our prime minister Elio Di Rupo is not only the son of italian immigrants bus is also homosexual (wich we in Belgium easily forget because it's a complete non-issue over here, certainly no liability in elections)
But I do understand that part of a choice was precisely because Obama is Black, and I accept it as a good thing, taking in consideration that we are talking about the United States.
In recent history both the Republican and democratic party - winning or losing - could consistently count on at least 45% of the electorate. The 2 last election cycles didn't fundamentally alter that tendency. Sure Africanamericans came out to the polls in record numbers and voted overwhelmingly for Obama (97% I think, but correct me if am wrong) wich was doubtlessly needed to counter a little bit of white backlash. But don't forget that almost nine out of ten africanamericans also voted for Clinton in previous years. If by any miracle the republican party would nominate an Africanamerican in 2016 and he would face a white democratic opponent, I'm pretty sure that at least eight out of ten africanamericans would still vote for the democrat. Yet the biggest racial hurdle for that africanamerican candidate would be to get trough the southren republican primaries. So yeay race does play a role in american politics, but the racially biased had long before Obama came round chosen camps.
Jews are not minorities in Western Europe. The only definitive Western European minority I am thinking about are Gypsies. But then again, if Spain had a partly Gypsy President or partly Jewish President or Dictator (Gonzalez, Franco), or a Mulatto dictator (Mola), nobody would give a crap.
People in Europe are courtisan and adore power. When Dumas, a Caribbean mulatto, was asked why he was always dressed as coachman and drove his own coach (a luxury back then), he said: "I want everybody to think that I am rich and powerful enough to have a black coachman".
Politicians are born to be politicians, their race or religion does not count. Napoleon and Hitler were foreigners, Stalin was not Russian, etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
