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 does the Congressional Black Caucus and tons of Black Americans fawn over "The Whitest black guy"? Oh wait I know, because many of them voted for him based on his skin color and nothing else which by definition is racist.
Would you say that most of the whites who voted for all of the other US Presidents did so because they were white?
Why does the Congressional Black Caucus and tons of Black Americans fawn over "The Whitest black guy"? Oh wait I know, because many of them voted for him based on his skin color and nothing else which by definition is racist.
I think that at that time in history, you could have put up "Slappy The Clown" and he would have been elected over the republican stars. People had enough of republicanism at that time. It had nothing to do with race for those that voted for Obama. Race only entered the picture with many of those who were against him.
On the "why would they want to be President of this country that hurt them", I think there actually would be pretty obvious reasons.
1: Whether it's right or wrong many American Indians do consider themselves Americans. They are US citizens. So their reason could be the same as anyone.
2: The US government and its policies still has a fair amount to do with how American Indians live. Maybe even more than other ethnic groups.
Although I guess it would still make sense if American Indians focus on tribal or state government instead. Looking it up I guess American Indians represent 2.8% of our population, I didn't think it was that high, so as there's been forty Presidents or so I guess it would make some math sense for their to be an American Indian one.
Anyway on looking it up it seems Italians, Mexicans, and Poles are the largest groups to have never had a member be US President. This is not an advocacy for anything, I just like statistics.
Why does the Congressional Black Caucus and tons of Black Americans fawn over "The Whitest black guy"? Oh wait I know, because many of them voted for him based on his skin color and nothing else which by definition is racist.
Actually going by the statistics blacks didn't vote that much more Democratic than they have in other elections of the last 50 years.
In 2008 Gallup has the black vote as 99% for Obama. I think that's probably higher than it actually was, but for now we'll go with that.
In 2004 they give Kerry 93% of the black vote and in 2000 they have Gore receiving 95% of the black vote. Before then they seem to divide the vote between "white" and "non-white" rather than specifying black. Clinton in 1992 received just 77% of the non-white vote with Perot coming in second at 12%. Dukakis is listed as 82% of the general non-white vote and Mondale 87%. You have to go back to 1960 to find a time where the Democratic candidate received less than 77% of the non-white vote. Eisenhower was the last Republican to get consistently more than 20% of the non-white vote.
Now the General Social Survey lists it a bit differently. They have Kerry receiving just 89.7% of the black vote and Gore 87.9%. They actually put Clinton above them in both elections. According to the Dukakis only received 75.9% of the black vote. They don't list any Presidential candidate doing worse than Dukakis with the black vote, but they only go back to 1968.
So at maximum 10-20% may have voted on race, maybe a bit more if we include who just wouldn't have voted most years, but polls would indicate that in several states 10-20% of whites voted against Obama due to race. Or at least in part due to race. Floyd County, Kentucky had went Democratic since 1960 and gave Kerry 62% of their vote, but went for McCain in 2008. I'm from the "Mountain South" myself, but I think race might have been part of such an extreme shift happening in a relatively short period.
Since the news media is so excited about the likelyhood that a Black American will soon be our President...when are we going to have an American Indian in that position?
Of course Indian American is different than American Indian. And even if it makes whites uncomfortable, for geography reasons I suppose, "American Indian" does seem to be the preferred term among them. This is both going by my experience and the evidence I know.
Although "Indigenous Americans" or "First Nations People" is preferred in some cases. Canadian indigenous really emphasize "First Nations" from what I can tell.
Of course Indian American is different than American Indian. And even if it makes whites uncomfortable, for geography reasons I suppose, "American Indian" does seem to be the preferred term among them. This is both going by my experience and the evidence I know.
Although "Indigenous Americans" or "First Nations People" is preferred in some cases. Canadian indigenous really emphasize "First Nations" from what I can tell.
Between each other when we communicate via internet or text we just use NDN when the term comes up in usage.
When are we going to have an American Indian in that position? If not why not? I certainly think they deserve the position.
Of course, we can't elect any member of a sovereign tribe.
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.
