Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-13-2011, 11:51 AM
 
8,743 posts, read 18,344,300 times
Reputation: 4168

Advertisements

You are still missing the critical thinking skills..and are simply justifying your view by finding data to support it. Obama did not win this election along racial lines...he won more whites, blacks and hispanic voters than Kerry, which is why he won the election. He only one 7+ more points in the Black vote..yet that means it's racial? Huh? He won 2+ more white percentage...that's racial too?

And somehow Kerry winning 88% of the black vote in 2004 is not racial? Oy vey indeed! Yes technically he received less white votes than McCain, but he was never going to win the majority of that vote, so it was never his to "win." He did in fact do better than Kerry in 2004, 2+ points...so he "won" the white vote in fact. Losing the white vote would have been getting less than Kerry in 2004.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-13-2011, 02:56 PM
 
Location: Manhattan
25,368 posts, read 36,960,557 times
Reputation: 12767
When whites split their votes approximately 50-50 for and against a black candidate that is NOT racist voting.
When blacks vote 96% FOR a black candidate that IS racist voting.
(That is not even to mention the increased and unprecedented NUMBERS of voting blacks.)

They are voting overwhelmingly for a candidate precisely and solely because of his race.

The thread topic was REVERSE RACISM and if that voting pattern doesn't perfectly illustrate reverse racism than nothing ever will.

You can gas on and on about Kerry, or Truman, or Hoover but that doesn't change the reality one bit. Nor does it obfuscate the reality for anyone with insight.

If you start with an a priori that there cannot be such a thing as reverse racism, well then that is another matter dealiing more with Faith and Hope (ike the Obama campaign) than anything germaine.


I think the last election was decided by racist voting; you think not. Little more can be gained in beating it to death.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2011, 03:41 PM
 
105 posts, read 322,056 times
Reputation: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllenDullesMJ12 View Post

I think racism by itself just means bigotry due to race. While 'institutional racism' is what you are talking about.

As I mentioned, the definition itself is up for debate. My point is that there should be some term reserved for the act of one race exerting it's will on another, and should be distinct from acts of prejudice that individuals engage in. IMO, the word 'racism' is used too lightly and too universally to describe individual acts. "Racism" the word implies there is an "institution" behind the act; a group; a race - an individual using the institutions of race as a wedge to exert his or her will over another of a different race. I believe it is this implication that has given rise to the term, "reverse racism", which I think is apt. A race in power exerting it's will over a race out of power is "racism". And a race not in power exerting it's will over individuals of the empowered race is "reverse racism". I think the distinction is important and apt. To describe acts between races that don't factor in power, we have other words: i.e., prejudice.

My two more cents.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2011, 07:19 AM
 
8,743 posts, read 18,344,300 times
Reputation: 4168
Kefir your comments are revisionist history at its best:

1. What have the last 300 years of presidential elections been? Not based on race? Really? Blacks were not even considered people for 200 years (3/5 of a person at best actually), so how could they even run for office? All presidential elections were 100% racial in that Blacks weren't even allowed to run, so whites had the pleasure of voting for 2 white MEN..ALWAYS..how is that not racial????

2. If you call Obama receiving 95% of the Black vote "racial", what do you call Kerry in 2004 receiving 88% of the Black vote? Black voters thought he was black? Why is that not racial? An increase of 7 points makes it racial?

Critical thinking is still lacking here.....let's take the conversation past the 8th grade level.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2011, 07:43 AM
 
Location: Queens, N.Y.
675 posts, read 1,253,618 times
Reputation: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by SobroGuy View Post
1. What have the last 300 years of presidential elections been? Not based on race? Really? Blacks were not even considered people for 200 years (3/5 of a person at best actually), so how could they even run for office? All presidential elections were 100% racial in that Blacks weren't even allowed to run, so whites had the pleasure of voting for 2 white MEN..ALWAYS..how is that not racial????
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2011, 07:55 AM
 
8,743 posts, read 18,344,300 times
Reputation: 4168
Dennis it takes intelligence and real critical thinking to understand what has been happening in our society since its inception, and what continues to occur. I am not surprised that Kefir, like so many others, believe 2008's election was the first "racist" election...it's all about rewriting history, ignoring the truth, and of course, blaming blacks and holding them to a standard they don't hold themselves to.

We had Sarah Palin with her knocked up unmarried daughter, no job, not in school, and boyfriend paraded around as if it were something to celebrate. Now imagine if Obama's daughter were pregnant and unmarried at 19, not in school and no job, guess what the response would have been? Here's a hint..it would have been the usual stereotypes, and probably sunk any chance he had to win the election.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2011, 08:00 AM
 
810 posts, read 834,962 times
Reputation: 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by tkak69 View Post
As I mentioned, the definition itself is up for debate. My point is that there should be some term reserved for the act of one race exerting it's will on another, and should be distinct from acts of prejudice that individuals engage in. IMO, the word 'racism' is used too lightly and too universally to describe individual acts. "Racism" the word implies there is an "institution" behind the act; a group; a race - an individual using the institutions of race as a wedge to exert his or her will over another of a different race. I believe it is this implication that has given rise to the term, "reverse racism", which I think is apt. A race in power exerting it's will over a race out of power is "racism". And a race not in power exerting it's will over individuals of the empowered race is "reverse racism". I think the distinction is important and apt. To describe acts between races that don't factor in power, we have other words: i.e., prejudice.

My two more cents.
It should not really be up for debate because of the root part of the word, race. It simply means a focus of race and not social dynamics.

Maybe people are confusing the term supremacy with racism because of its connection in the United States. But if you want something to be applied to any general case regardless of nation then racism should just mean race-based prejudice or bigotry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2011, 08:01 AM
 
Location: Manhattan
25,368 posts, read 36,960,557 times
Reputation: 12767
SO now we go back to George Washington to explain why blacks voting universally for a black man becasue he is black is not racist voting.
If whites voting only for whites in 1812 or 1848 was racist, as I agree it was, then blacks voting for blacks because they are black in 2008 is equally rascist voting.

Try really hard to knock the double standard out of your heads. You are starting with an a priori that there can be NO black racism...but you are wrong.
Blacks can hate whites and they CAN do it in a voting booth when given the chance as they did in 2008 and will probably will again in 2012 but in fewer numbers.

If you don't think an attitude of "I will vote for a black man against ANY white man he runs against" isn't racism, then you don't know what racism is. And when that feeling runs to almost 100% of the population, that is INSTITUTIONALIZED RACISM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2011, 08:04 AM
 
810 posts, read 834,962 times
Reputation: 491
People vote for their interest. The belief is that Democrats are better for poor communities, and the candidate being black is like icing on the cake. But what percentage of black voters would chose a conservative/libertarian black candidate over a white Democrat? I would guess the majority will still vote for the second option.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2011, 08:30 AM
 
Location: Queens, N.Y.
675 posts, read 1,253,618 times
Reputation: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by SobroGuy View Post
Dennis it takes intelligence and real critical thinking to understand what has been happening in our society since its inception, and what continues to occur. I am not surprised that Kefir, like so many others, believe 2008's election was the first "racist" election...it's all about rewriting history, ignoring the truth, and of course, blaming blacks and holding them to a standard they don't hold themselves to.

We had Sarah Palin with her knocked up unmarried daughter, no job, not in school, and boyfriend paraded around as if it were something to celebrate. Now imagine if Obama's daughter were pregnant and unmarried at 19, not in school and no job, guess what the response would have been? Here's a hint..it would have been the usual stereotypes, and probably sunk any chance he had to win the election.
We all know what the response to that would've been point blank.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:52 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top