Damn man…you need to give warning when you are going to uncork something like this. You know how much monitors cost these days?
To answer your question, it’s probably so hard to understand because you are claiming it by fiat…and also because all of your handwaving is a bit distracting.
They are voting based solely on race (or the perception of ‘race’, since I actually think the whole race thingy is pure bullshit)…not content. This is pretty much by definition racism.
Whether or not it’s true, voting because of some perceived advantage by race or creed is pretty much equivalent…and equivalently wrong headed. Let’s think about it for a moment here…do you agree that because McCain is Scots/Irish (I assume) that folks who are Scots/Irish and vote for McCain based solely on that basis are fully justified in this voting stance? I mean…both Scots and Irish have been oppressed in the past…and afaik neither has been all that well represented in the White House in the past.
Even if this is the case (which it isn’t or we’d have all WASP blue bloods in the White House instead of mongrels like Billy Boy), then they would be equally justified in voting for their own because of some perceived advantage to their ‘race’.
Well…they are equivalent. If someone votes for Obama (say) solely because of race then they are pretty much the same as someone voting against Obama simply because of race.
Of course, in the real world people vote for complex reasons…most of which usually boil down to ‘Well, my daddy and grand daddy voted Democrat so I’m going to vote XXX’…
Consider race being used as a factor. Not the only factor, not even the primary factor. But a factor. Since I’ve never said race is an overriding consideration–and in fact, I’ve taken pains to say the exact opposite–it’s amusing to see you ask this question.
Right. And the woman who says she’s rooting for Hillary because she’s a female breaking gender barriers deserves to be put in the same class as the bigot who says that Hillary needs to be ironing his shirt and sucking his dick, not running a country. Yeah. Okay. Sexism is sexismm and hatred is hatred, right. Even when hatred isn’t there, it’s hatred.
If you can provide a clear, or at least reasonable, way to tell when it isn’t really racism or secism, but this inchoate but nevertheless real form of non-racist, positive acting on the basis of race, or non-sexist, positive acting on the basis of sex, then please enlighten us.
I’m not hung up on semantics like you and others in this thread apparently are. If we call supporting the minority candidate for the reasons I’ve outlined as racism (or sexism) that’s cool and all (actually it’s stupid, but whatever, I’m playing along). But I’m arguing that’s it such an incomplete analysis that it’s essentially meaningless in terms of comparisons.
We call Hillary a victim of sexism and it’s 100% clear what we mean by this. We mean she’s been handicapped by anti-female prejudice and bigotry. Now we could counter this assertion with the claim that Obama is a victim of sexism as well, since a bunch of suffragettes are throwing their support behind a fellow woman. And guess what? We wouldn’t be incorrect.
But would we be disingenuous? Of course. Would calling Obama a victim of sexism clarify the truth or muddy it for ulterior purposes?
Probably because you’re using a definition of “Racism” shared by nobody else in the English-speaking world. Making up your own personal definitions for commonly used words frequently results in misunderstanding.
It’s all part of the same package. It somebody saying “I’m going to take care of my own kind ahead of those other people.” It doesn’t matter what basis you use to separate your group form the others - race, gender, religion, nationality, age, whatever - it’s still the same.
So I guess Hillary is sexist for citing gender as a reason why she is staying this race. And not only that, she’s as much sexist as the folks who’d rather die than elect a woman. Cause its all the same. Okay, gotcha.
Why do you suppose, of all the things she’s caught flak for, few people have bothered to villify her for calling attention to what her gender represents to so many of her supporters? If “it’s still the same” obviously she should be writhing in hot water now. She’s inflamming the nation with her divisive rhetoric! Somebody stop her!
For what it’s worth, I absolutely acknowledge that racism creates a harm that runs along a spectrum. Near one end, we might consider a black woman who finds herself romantically attracted only to black men. This is making a decision (of sorts) based on race, but I think everyone would agree that someone should be free to make choices about their romantic partners for any and all reasons, free of disapprobation.
Near the other end, we might place acts of violence and physical harm directed against members of another race, for the sole reason of racial difference. I think we can all agree that this is the most ugly face of racism.
Close to that far end, we might place cloaked racial discrimination – refusal to hire, to rent or sell, to do business with – based on race, and hidden behind some sort of plausible excuse. This is a great evil as well, all the worse because it is difficult to counteract.
So there’s no question that all racial bias, all racism, is not equal.
But it’s all racism. We may choose to condemn some expressions of racism more strongly than others because some expressions of racism are more invidious than others.
Do you have a cite showing that Hillary said the ONLY reason she is staying in is because she is a woman? Assuming you don’t then your analogy is pretty weak to what we have been discussing in this thread. A similar analogy to yours would go like this:
“I’m voting for Obama because I like his ideas on what can be done for America, I agree with on nearly every policy, and because he’s black”. As opposed to “I’m voting for Obama because he’s black” which would correspond to “I’m Hillary Clinton and I’m staying in the race because I’m a woman”.
Only if you build her a strawman of her very own of your own devising. Hillary, afaik, is staying in for a complex series of reasons (such as, I don’t know, the fact that she still thinks she can be president?)…one of which MIGHT be that she is a woman and feels that this is a good chance for a woman to impact US politics at the presidential level. If Obama was behind and said that one of the reasons he wanted to stay in was because he is black and wants to gain more exposure to black at the highest level of politics he wouldn’t be a racist either. There is a big difference between running for myriad reasons…one of which is that you are proud of your ‘race’ and want to push the envelope of your racial group to the top of US politics…and running solely based on one’s race.
Even then this gets a bit far afield of the question and acts more as a distraction IMHO.
Probably because your position is a strawman that most people don’t accept, that she isn’t running solely because she is a woman…and that she has caught plenty of flak about the things she has actually done and said. That would be my guess anyway.
Well, it’s not the same…even if we stand on our heads and spin quarters while whistling Dixie.
But isn’t the inverse true? Hillary and Bill are now claiming that she’s been treated badly because of sexism. That’s she’s really winning and if it wasn’t for the rampant sexism, she would be the nominee.
Essential they’re saying that ONLY reason she’s losing, as opposed to winning is because she’s a woman.
I would say that is pandering…and also trying to poison the well to a certain degree. It’s exactly the same thing that I hear some Obama supporters wringing their hands about, especially in the early days (but you still hear it even today)…that Obama can’t be elected because the White Establishment™ won’t LET him be elected…which essentially means that whites won’t vote for him because he’s black thus has no chance.
I think this is a way to poison the well AND to set themselves up in case they lose. Then they can say that Hillary/Obama didn’t win because of sexism/racism…that their candidate WOULD have won, if only Americans weren’t so damn prejudiced, blah blah blah. That way they can convinced themselves that it’s not the politics that Americans didn’t like…but the color of their skin or the lack of a cock.
Why does it matter if it’s the ONLY reason? Does your assessment totally change if race or gender is one out of 10 reasons to elect someone, instead of one out of one?
Repeatedly in this thread, I’ve talked about using race as a factor, and you claimed that that’s indistiguishable from using race as the sole factor. Can you please, for the love of sushi and fuzzy-faced kitty cats, make up your ever lovin mind?
Yes…my assessment changes (somewhat) if we are talking about someone with a complex variety of reasons to vote for (or against) someone, including their race. If the ONLY reason you are voting for (or against) someone is race however…well, that’s another matter IMHO. That is racism, pure and simple.
You haven’t been paying attention to what I’ve written…or I’ve written it so badly that it’s coming out differently than what I’ve meant. If someone makes a determination to vote for or against someone solely on the basis of that persons race then it’s not right…regardless of whether they are black, brown, green or yellow. Make no difference. And this was the question the OP was asking.
If you say, however, that a person is making a determination to vote for or against someone for a complex series of reasons, emotions, feelings, etc, that INCLUDE race…well, that would be human nature. While personally I don’t condone that (I think voting should be color blind personally and the only important things are content of the platform and charisma/emotional impact), I don’t think it’s necessarily racist as it’s merely one factor in the decision tree that makes up a persons vote.
And that was the only speech she ever gave on why she is running, ehe?
I think that maybe explains the point hat DTC was trying to make. When Obama says that no one expected a black man with a funny name to win white votes; yet here I am…showing that the country isn’t what we thought it was…while it is a ‘racist’ comment, it is one with a small ‘r’. It notes the real historical context of his campaign, but acknowledges using the rules of the past, no longer applies.
When one of the WV says I’ll never vote for a black man, regardless of his qualifications; that’s a whole different level of racism.
One can interact racially and not be a racist…depending on what your interpetation a racist is.
We know that blacks overwhelmingly vote Democratic. We know that blacks don’t support other black candidates in the percentages that they do Obama. We know that Hillary Clinton had the majority of the black vote…until Obama started winning and Bill started opening his mouth. We know that blacks have no problem supporting white candidates and we’ve never seen a subset of blacks seemingly refuse to support a white candidate soley because he wasn’t black, as the whites seemed to do in WV, towards Obama.
I think the question of racism becomes a matter of positive vs negative results, based on context. If I decide to support a traditionally African-American school, because I feel my dollars are better spent helping African-Americans get an education; then i’m allowing race to influence my decision. Clearly I’m denying another school my support based on their race of their students…however whites have enough of a support base, that my support won’t hurt them as a GROUP and I think that’s the key here.
I think that when Blacks vote for a black candidate, even if they do so solely on race, they don’t do so with the purpose of keeping the status quo or out of fear or to stick it to whitey; they do so as an attempt to finally have representation in the government and the main way to do that, historically is with the vote.
Historically whites have used to vote to maintain the status quo and keep others in second class status. If you listen to some of the most blatant examples of white racism, you hear the constant theme of fear, of being afraid that the blacks are now going to take revenge; now that they have power, real power…when you hear the most blatant examples of black racism, you hear that it’s time for a black man to have that real power, in order to better the race.
Are both statements racist? Sure, but they are not equal in scope, moviation or desired results.
This is the first time we as a nation have had to deal with this and we really need to expand our social consciousness a degree or two in order to really absorb what we’re witnessing.
If we were to go back 40 or 50 years and noted that 90% of blacks voted for certain civil rights laws, while 90% of white voted against it; we would have no problem deciding which group to call racist and we certainly wouldn’t treat both decisions equally…because they were moviated by difference desires and end results.
I think we’re witnessing another step in that path towards full equality, via representation; with moderates, progressives, independents and African-Americans going one way, the rest going another. There was a clear line in the sand drawn in WV.
Calling them both ‘racist’, while technically true, belittles the real evolution that’s occuring. Make no doubt about it, if Obama wins the presidency, America with change.
That’s actually still textbook racism. Using race as a sole factor or one of many factors still means your decision is influenced by race and is therefore, racist. So if you condemn one just because its racist, then have to condemn the other for the same reason.
Hillary is being sexist regardless of whether gender is the ONLY reason she’s in the race, or one of many.
Racist human nature, if you want to fall back on definitions. Glad you’re starting to see that a dictionary doesn’t tell the full story.
I’m trying to figure out why “only” has so much power over you all of the sudden.
Going from what I remember with Chisom, Keyes, Jackson and Sharpton, I don’t believe they received what Obama received, but hey…I hate a blanket statement as much as the next guy; so I’ll adjust it to only those above who’ve run for president…and depending on which state we’re talking about.
Well, how do you think Jackson won the primary in South Carolina?
Also, keep in mind that Jackson and Sharpton never had a chance of winning, and everyone knew that. If you remember, Obama didn’t get great support from Blacks early on, and it was only after he looked like had a chance of winning that he started getting their overwhelming support.
I’m trying to figure out how after 4 pages it’s ‘all of a sudden’…
‘Starting to see’ ehe? And here I thought I’ve been seeing this all along.
Only with a judicious application of straw.
Sure…but there are shades of gray here. Things aren’t black and white (heh). Someone who allows race to predominate their decision process is much more a racist than someone who merely lets it influence their decision process. Why is that so hard to understand? You seem to want to condemn everyone by using the same broad brush of racism, regardless of degree…or perhaps you are hoping to show something else entirely.
Right, but I believe Obama was getting those numbers in states after South Carolina and as you note Jackson and Sharpton never had a chance of winning; but they received a larger percentage votes at first than Obama did.
If blacks were voting solely on race, then Obama, who like Sharpton and Jackson wasn’t considered a serious candidate should have received more black votes than Clinton; regardless of his standing.
