Well, yeah, the word “pervasive” can mean different things to different people. I would just say that if Obama wins in Nov, it would mean this country is in a very different place wrt race relations than just 20 years. In fact, I think that the viability of his candidacy already tells us that. That doesn’t mean that every store clerk in the country has stopped keeping on eye on Black customers more than they would White customers, but it’s a huge step in the right direction.
I’m arguing that the election’s outcome should not be seen as evidence one way or the other.
If its silly to conclude that a loss for Obama means America is a racist haven, then its silly to conclude that a win for Obama means the opposite. Especially if he’s running against the equivalent to a sack of potatoes.
I don’t think we have to look at Obama to know this. Blacks have made a whole lot of strides, and Obama’s success would be consistent with those strides. But even in the most racist of days, you could point to blacks who were doing relatively well.
Are you claiming that the only kind of racism that has ever existed is a denial of legal rights?
I wouldn’t go that far. I think the election of a black president would be evidence of progress being made in racial relations. And as such, I guess the appropriate thing to say to people like Jackson and Sharpton would be “We’re making progress and things are getting better. So keep up the good work.”
Although its tempting to share your view, I don’t because of the question that I keep mentioning that no one has really addressed:
If an Obama win is evidence of progress wrt racial relations, what would his loss be evidence of? Anything? Nothing? Does it make sense to take the positive view, but not the negative?
I’m not sure what you’re asking me. I think there’s ample evidence that there’s still an unfortunate amount of racism in this country. So the issue that racism exists is already proven as far as I’m concerned and Obama’s campaign really isn’t going to say anything further on that issue. If he loses; racism still exists. And if he wins; racism still exists.
The question is how much racism exists in the country and whether it’s increasing or decreasing. I think the evidence is that racism is on the decline and Obama’s campaign has been part of the evidence of this. But I don’t see this as a sign that we should stop fighting racism. I find it just the opposite - we’ve shown that racism is an evil that can be fought and beaten so we should continue our course.
I don’t see why you insist that this must be the case. If Klingons landed in Central Park tomorrow, it would be pretty good proof that aliens exist. If they did not, it barely registers as an argument against alien life.
This analogy is not apt.
Yeah, if aliens showed up tomorrow then that would be proof of their existence. You can’t argue against physical evidence like that. But the supposition that an Obama victory means something greater about race relations is based on something much more debatable than the alien conclusion.
Based on the internet memes that have already made the circuit about him, I’m more inclined to believe that if Obama wins it will be in spite of racism…not because racism is on its way out the door. And I state this while recognizing that racism is on the decline. I just don’t think you can’t point to one individual and make big statements like that.
Just as a data point, in 1988, Jesse Jackson won the Vermont caucus. Vermont is another “white as white state”.
I think the OP is arguing that if Obama wins that will serve as proof that racism is not pervasive anymore. That’s not the same thing as the question you’re asking above.
If we are looking at anti-black racism, I think you’d find few people who think its actually increasing. What’s most often contested is the idea that it doesn’t exist at a significant level anymore. But most people will probably agree that things have gotten better since 30 years ago. Black president or no black president.
Has anyone like Obama (youngish black guy with a non-race-specific platform, with enough political experience to be considered a serious contender, who does not go by the title reverend) ever even run for president? When you consider that just in 2004 Obama became only the 3rd popularly elected black person to even have a seat in the US Senate (and there have only been 2 black governors), that tells me that we are really living in unprecedented times. Historically, I don’t think we’ve seen enough qualified black presidential candidates to really draw any conclusions about race relations specifically with respect to Obama. If we could compare and contrast the way past candidates were treated to the way that Obama is, then maybe we’d be able to do that. But we can’t.
It may seem like I’m arguing too hard on this, but I have a good reason. I’m worried that some whites will vote for Obama to prove that America is not racist. That’s not a good reason to vote for him. The perception that Affirmative Action is why Obama won the presidency will not only hurt his image and possibly his legacy, but ironically, it will exacerbate racial tension as the right will use the Affirmative Action card as a way of undermining his status every chance they get.
You’re funny. Idaho has two senators, you know; it’s not a foreign country. And it’s less racist than Dixie, still.
Amen. The OP’s suggestion of dismissing our old warhorses simply does not follow logically.
Jesse Jackson used to spit in white folks’ hamburgers? Where was this? Cite?
Isn’t it more likely that if forced to give up what has made him famous, that he’d pursue one of his other interests?
…but during…BG, you stinkin reference thief 
The OP has an interesting question.
One thing is for sure, neither Jesse nor Al will go quietly into the night. My guess is they will be thorns in Obama’s side the entire time he is President. Just like other groups question their President’s loyalty to their cause, I can easily see Jesse and Al calling Obama everything from Uncle Tom to traitor to the Civil Rights Movement every time he doesn’t jump onto their bandwagon 100% of the time. I think both Jesse and Al both thought they would never actually live long enough to see a viable black candidate run for President, and it must be pissing them off to no end think he is doing it without their official blessing.
In the same vein, should Hillary be elected, I am sure there will be no dearth of women, even Democrats, eager to point out every failure she makes in votes about womens’ issues.
And as a Gay man, I pity the first openly Gay President…as the old joke goes, take a look at the Gay Pride Flag - that is an example of the Gay Community coming together to decide what color it should be. Talk about a nightmare of trying to make the LGBT community happy…
Let’s face it, no matter what a President’s race, gender, sexual orientation or religious beliefs are, there will always be community leaders in their own group out to draw blood.
I believe racial attitudes have improved over the last thirty years, but The Jena Six , Dog the Bounty Hunter’s racial diatribe, and comments made by Don Imus and Bill O’Reilly indicate that a pervasive level of prejudice and racism still exists in contemporary American society.
Racism will continue to decline as the socioeconomic gap between blacks and whites shrinks, giving way to classism. But, this Dope thread http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=450200&highlight=Black+POTUS exemplifies the continued racial attitudes held by many, despite gains in racial parity, and supports the fact that race is still an issue for many, if not most, Americans
You raise an interesting point. It’s ironic that in a post in which he claims racism no longer exists he also says that the only job Jesse Jackson is qualified for is working in a fast food joint.
Hey, Happy, what do you call a black man who’s got a doctorate in theology, founded a major lobbying organization and ran it for twenty years, is a published author and talented speaker, and ran for President twice?