But your vote for one candidate because of their race means that the opponents race was a factor against that opponent, does it not?
For example, voting for Obama solely because he’s black means that Hillary’s skin color lost her that vote.
I respectfully disagree. This is a mind trick that allows folks who hold racial biases to feel better about them, IMO. If it’s wrong in one example, it’s wrong in all.
No, it does not.
I don’t hold any racial biases, and the history and power differentials are hard, cold facts.
The facts are not in dispute, but they are being used to justify the attitudes and beliefs that are judged wrong when held by other individuals.
“Rationalising”, I think the term is.
They are not the same attitudes and beliefs. That’s what I’m trying to tell you. No one is voting for Obama because they think white people are inferior or unfit for office. Plenty are voting against him because they think that way.
Sorry, but white people don’t get to act like they have any of the same grievances as black people.
They are favoring one candidate over the other based on skin color. Simple as that.
Wrong is wrong. Period. Just because there may be 7 white racists for every black racist doesnt mean that the black isn’t racist. They’re all wrong.
It really is not as simple as that. “Favoring” is not racist. Absolutely excluding a racial group from any consideration is racist. A lot of white voters are doing the latter. there is no evidence (in fact, all evidence is to the contrary), that black voters are doing that.
black racist doesnt mean that the black isn’t racist. They’re all wrong.
[/QUOTE]
There has been no demonstration of any significant black racism – not that white people would have any right to complain about it anyway.
Righto. White people and black people should be treated and judged differently from one another.
I don’t agree. Nor do you get to simply define racism as only running in one direction, and assert that the debate is over, by virtue of your definition. (Unless your name is Merriam or Webster, that is.)
You have got to be kidding…tell me you are kidding here??? Are you seriously suggesting that racism doesn’t happen in people who’s skin is black? Or that even if it does it’s ok because white folks have demonstrated racism??
Seriously…you are trying to define your own terms and then covering the bases with ‘well, even if they do, it’s ok…because White people did it first!’.
If you vote based on the color of someones skin (whether you for for them or against them on that basis) you are voting based on perceived race…and that is racism. Whether you be white, black, brown or green. It really is as simple as that.
-XT
If a black person votes for Barack Obama because he’s black and a white person votes for John McCain because he’s white, they’re doing the same thing. Either both are racist or neither are.
Nope. Sorry. It’s only racism if you refuse to vote for somebody because of their race. Why is that so hard to understand?
Does this work in all fields or just elections?
If Hypothetical University sets a admissions policy of preferring white students over minority students, and this results in a serve underrepresentation of minority students at the university, is the admissions policy racist? They are not refusing to admit minority students. They just prefer white students.
If a person votes aginst either candidate based on race, it’s racism. Black voters have not shown an unwillingness to vote for white candidates, so all accusations of racism when they finally get a chance to vote for a black candidate (and historical context is everything, whether anyone wants to admit or not) are ridiculous. Let West Virginia prove it’s willingness to vote for any black candidate and we’ll talk. There is no symmetry here. Historical context, historical power differentials, and historical voting patterns delegitimize all such lame attempts to equate the two phenomena.
Nope. Wrongo, bzzzt. Thanks for playing.
Because you just made up that definition, that’s why. Judging someone because of his race is racism, whether that judgment is favorable or disfavorable.
Those voting for Obama because he’s black are not judging his opponent on her race. Those who vote against[ him because he’s black are doing just that.
Huh? Of course they are. They’re judging that she’s not black (Reminder: “Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger.” - Rev. Wright). Do you *really * think the status of the election would be the same if she *were * black?
She’s in the race in the first place because she’s a former First Lady. If we had such thing as a black former First Lady, we wouldn’t be having this debate at all.
Can we put aside the question of “is this racist?” for one minute–because all we’re seeing in this debate is a tortuous academic exercise–and consider if there’s a fundamental ethical difference between
and
We can argue whether something is racist till the cows come home, but that’s not a real debate. Yes, if a black person let’s Obama race sway them in the poll booth, then yes that person is a “racist”. (Ooooh, look at that!) But should this “racism” be equated with the kind of racism that leads whites to outright hate Obama and warrants his Secret Service detail.
And, even if true, that is relevant to a race discussion how? And I’ll ask you the same question - if she were black, would it really not have made any difference? Come on now.
Your comment furthermore only makes sense if you’re sure she’s merely Bill’s ventriloquist puppet, nothing more despite a long public history to the contrary, and that somehow the people of New York and of every state whose primaries she’s won have just been too blind to get it. Is that it, or is there more?
You refer only to those voters for whom race is an overriding consideration, not those (the large majority, I believe) who look a variety of issues? Then you’re begging the question - somebody who votes on the basis primarily of race is a racist either way. What, you think Clarence Thomas was lauded by “the black community” for making it to the Supreme Court the way Thurgood Marshall was?
All major candidates get Secret Service protection. And hatred is hatred.