[QUOTE=Magiver]
The same thing that’s wrong with someone advocating the support of white businesses. It’s an insulting statement to make. Don’t confuse supporting local businesses with a statement of support for black businesses. They may represent the same people but the message is entirely different.
[/QUOTE]
Why is insulting? Who does it insult? What message are you getting that you so afraid of? It’s a marketing strategy just like anything other. Are you saying anyone can steer people to any business they want to, except in those instances where the word “black” is used, or only if they don’t say it out loud but, instead, silently accept the same thing being done because it’s been done for years?
Of course it is your right not to do so, but it is telling that you did not address this point or call those who do so, and have done so, for a long term Klansman:
“Establishing and building from familiar connections is always what’s tacitly going on the executive-laden golf courses of America and its top brass and decisionmakers and it has been for many years, right? I don’t see you excoriating them for builidng on the natural connections they’re used to and calling them grand wizards.”
[QUOTE=Magiver]
Would you shop at an “Appalachian” owned business because a local minister thinks white people should support white owned businesses. Hell would freeze over before I would.
[/QUOTE]
You already do so. It’s just not spoken. Institutionalization of such a system makes it’s easy for one in that group to sit and enjoy the benefits of it and not be critical of it.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
If public statements are made in front of a crowd of Jews, absolutely.
[/QUOTE]
Again, why does the public nature of the statements, as opposed to their being private, tacit or institutionalized, make a difference? The end result is the same. See unanswered quote above.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
Different issue. . . . . I’m not even sure what a black themed movie is but if the audience at large isn’t interested in the plot then it doesn’t get made. And given my general desire to live in a melting pot society I would expect movies to represent society as a whole and not be racially themed.
[/QUOTE]
While I might have used a bit of shorthand to describe movies that relate to a black experience – individual or collectively – surely you’re not saying there no stories (novels, histories, biographies, films) that come from a personal viewpoint? And that includes a black experience. Think of that experience in America alone – in the 1940s, 2008 (my previous police story) or even 2505. Yes, good stories ultimately have universal themes, but surely you have to acknowledge that such a theme comes out of telling the truth about a particular experience, and not out of attempting to scrub that story clean of any personalized truth in the pursuit of a misguided anti-PCness and a willful blindness to an individual’s reality.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
Senator Obama used his church as a springboard and that’s fine for him on a local level. His intentions are now national and what worked for him before is now a stumbling block . . . . He cannot run for national office if people perceive him as a living the life of an insulated demographic.
[/QUOTE]
Even if he did, who had the heavier weight in that choice? Even he has stated that his experiences in this society forced him to choose a label for who he is, rather than simply be all the things he is.
[QUOTE=Hamlet]
It took two pages to finally get to the actual point, which was weaselly hidden, of the OP. From my view, the entire concern over Obama’s church boils down to it’s black liberation theology, and “certain people” are concerned over the black liberation theology espoused by the TUCC. It is, to my mind, just another attempt to build up the fear of Obama among white voters.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed. See unanswered quote.