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.
Kefir how can the blacks have given us Obama? He is as much white as he is black...and clearly it was whites that elected him as much as blacks did..otherwise he would not be in office. So no..blacks did not give us Obama, nor is he black. He is both, and both populations elected him to office.
Of course there's no such thing as "reverse" racism. That implies that only one group can be racist, so coming from anyone else it's the exception to the rule. Nothing could be more nonsensical than that.
Once upon a time, language was a good thing, because it facilitated communication and understanding. Then some fool came along and turned the tables. Now language is used to confuse and mislead. Unfortunately, it was a lot easier to turn things around that it will ever be to put things back the way they were.
I think the difference is in the structure or institutions, as far as impact and intent. We still see the manifestation and legacy of that socially even today. If not, then there must be legitimacy to racial/ethnic superiority and inferiority.
Also, all are prejudice(about something) and anyone can be racist.
Kefir how can the blacks have given us Obama? He is as much white as he is black...and clearly it was whites that elected him as much as blacks did..otherwise he would not be in office. So no..blacks did not give us Obama, nor is he black. He is both, and both populations elected him to office.
Obama lost the white vote but got over 95% of the black vote. Without blacks voting strictly along racial lines we would have either Hillary Clinton or John McCain as president.
It seems very clear that this election was the first determined strictly by racial prejudice. It really is spelled out clearly in the numbers.
Had Obama been a white man with the same qualifications, he'd still be living in Illinois.
His is a case of affirmative action gone too far. (Another is Clarence Thomas.)
Critical thinking skills are sorely missing in your comment Kefir, and your deductions are flat out wrong...and here's why:
1.Obama did not lose the white vote, he got 43%, while Kerry in 2004 got 41%, so he won more of the white vote than the white guy in 2004.
2. Obama did win 95% of the black vote, and 67% of the Hispanic vote. BUT Kerry in 2004 won 88% and 53% respectively. Why not say Blacks voted on racial lines for Kerry, since he did win 88% of the vote in 2004? Clearly Blacks like White men from Massachusetts? Adding 7% points means it was racial? Huh?
3. How you throw affirmative action into this is beyond me, and shows you are grasping for straws and know nothing of affirmative action, how it works, and completely ignored the entire presidential election campaigns of 2008 and 2004 for that matter, or maybe did not understand either of them.
Obama was elected by a number of different groups, and because of that it was less about race, and more about substance. What can we deduce then? Obama ran a much better campaign, and won more of the White, Black and Hispanic vote than Kerry in 2004, and THAT is why he got elected. This vote was no more "racially motivated" than any other presidential vote, except that Obama is half-black, therefore if blacks vote for him in high numbers, it must be racial, according to race-baiters of course.
Furthermore, using your flawed logic and how you cherry pick data, you can also say it was more about age than race:
"For instance, it’s possible to make the argument that the election was decided by age instead of by race. Obama is 47, 25 years younger than his opponent. In November 2004, Kerry was 60, two years older than his opponent. Obama won the 18- to 29-year-old vote by 34 percentage points, and the 30- to 44-year-old vote by six points; Kerry’s margins among those two age groups were nine points and negative seven points, respectively. If voters in those two age groups had split among the two major parties in the same proportions as in 2004, and with all else equal, McCain would have won the election by a percentage point. Not to mention that a given voter’s decision may have nothing to do with his or her age, race or other demographic factors."
But don't take any of my words for it, read up yourself. And in the future Kefir, it is best to come to a conclusion AFTER researching information, and not cherry pick data to meet your preconceived notions.
Racisim is racisim, it doesn't matter what color the person is that it's coming from, no need to stick "reverse" in front of it. It's unfortunate what happened, and I hope they catch the thugs, but why didn't the victim switch cars or use the call bell to alert the conductor/motorman before it became physical?
This may not be entirely true, depending on how you define "racism". The term "racism" is loosely defined and exact meaning changes depending on whom you ask. Some consider the term to be synonymous with "prejudice", in which case Kandle's statement above would be true. Prejudice is prejudice, regardless of who's demonstrating it. But as Wikipedia points out:
"Some sociologists have defined racism as a system of group privilege."
I tend to subscribe to this definition. Only a racial group that benefits from social privilege can, according to this definition, exert "racism" on another group. Groups that do not have social clout, then, cannot be accused of "racism" because they don't have the leverage to benefit from it. I think this is an important distinction between "racism" and "prejudice". My 2 cents.
I tend to subscribe to this definition. Only a racial group that benefits from social privilege can, according to this definition, exert "racism" on another group. Groups that do not have social clout, then, cannot be accused of "racism" because they don't have the leverage to benefit from it. I think this is an important distinction between "racism" and "prejudice". My 2 cents.
What about sexism? Does that mean that only men can be sexist and not women? Or ageism, etc.
I think racism by itself just means bigotry due to race. While 'institutional racism' is what you are talking about.
1.Obama did not lose the white vote, he got 43%, while Kerry in 2004 got 41%, so he won more of the white vote than the white guy in 2004.
Uhhh, if you check real hard you'll find that Obama ran against McCain, the white guy who got 55% of the white vote. It really doesn't matter what vote Kerry got, or Woodrow Wilson or Adlai Stevenson for that matter. You might also recall that Kerry LOST the election against Bush. And you think MY logic is flawed??? OY!
thus your post #221 where you state that:
Quote:
and clearly it was whites that elected him as much as blacks did
was made up out of thin air and completely wrong.
Quote:
Fully 96 percent of black voters supported Obama and constituted 13 percent of the electorate, a 2-percentage-point rise in their national turnout. As in past years, black women turned out at a higher rate than black men.
In what universe does that NOT constitute voting on racial lines, aka racism. The white vote pretty much split and the black vote went universally to the black candidate.
Quote:
Obama was elected by a number of different groups, and because of that it was less about race, and more about substance.
That is just patently false, he was NOT elected by a diverse group as I have clearly shown.
Any white man with his qualifications, a one term do-nothing senator, would not have ever even gotten the nomination. That is affirmative action in action. Perhaps the presidency and the Supreme Court are two jobs that should be reserved for those competent to hold the office. Obama has clearly shown that he is NOT competent. The shame is that because of this silly experiment we stand the real chance of getting a bona fide fascist as the next President with the entire Congress and eventually the Supreme Court in Republican hands, ready to do his bidding.
tkak,
you said:
Quote:
I tend to subscribe to this definition. Only a racial group that benefits from social privilege can, according to this definition, exert "racism" on another group.
In Rwanda the Tutsi tribe, a minority, held political and economic power for years. They subjugated the majority Hutu tribe. The Hutu tribe rose up and slaughtered the Tutsi in a horrific genocide.
Was that racism? How does it fit with your definition?
Suppose a dozen black teens beat two whites to death for being in the wrong neighborhood? Is that racism?
I posit that both cases ARE racism. Your definition says not.
Last edited by Kefir King; 09-13-2011 at 11:33 AM..
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.
