*sigh* Obama is not a "racist" (and neither is Rev. Wright, really)

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=Malthus]
No, the fact that a Black man is idenified as “Black” even though he shares not one scintilla of what you claim is the essence of Black identity entirely disproves the notion that ethnicity is all about “culture” and not “skin colour”.
[/quote]

Identified by who? Who are you claiming has identified Obama as “Black’” He certainly has not tried to identify himself in those terms.

I’m sure you would agree that calling a half-Kenyan “not Black” is an absurdity.

That depends on what the other half is.

I would say there is a difference between being black and being Black.

You have given me a “working definition” of Black culture that doesn’t in fact work, since the subject of the thread, the very man under discussion, does not fit within it.

So what if he doesn’t fit wihin it? Why is it necessary for Brack Obama to fit within an ethnicity to recognize that it exists? Is it your position that Black american slave descendants are not a distinct ethnicity unto themselves in the US? Does adopting the half-white son of a Kenyan immigrant prove that the ethnicity doesn’t exist?

Moreover, “ethnicity” is about self-identity, not necessarily “culture”. It is you is claiming, totally incorrectly, that one must share a specific “culture” in order to be an “ethnicity”. Not so. Culture is one possible measure of self-identity but not the only one.

Sorry, but you’re just flat wrong on the definition of ethnicity. Self-identification has nothing to do with it. Etnicity is defined by shared genetic and cultural heritage. That’s what the word means. You can’t win the debate by tring to pretend that it only means skin color.

Well, obviously I disagree, based on the above. If ethnicity is *oppositional and situational, it makes no sense to condemn one half as “racist” but not the other half.

I never said that etnicity was oppositional. I’m only saying that the word used to DESIGNATE so-called “Black American” ethnicity arose from context. The word “Black” is used to refer to an ethnicity which happens to be black but that is not its sole identifyer. The word just got applied because historically, the vast majority of “black” people in Americahave been slave descendants, so there hasn’t been much risk of confusion (and white people treated African immigrants as if they were Black Americans anyway).

[Odesio]

[QUOTE=jayjay]

I don’t know how anyone of European descent whose ancestry was in this country for more than 30 years at this point can NOT feel “white guilt”. I really don’t. What this nation did to blacks (and Native Americans, for that matter) is shameful. I don’t know when the upper time limit on that will be reached. I just know it’s not been reached yet for me.
[/QUOTE]

I have ancestors from both sides of my family who were here before the revolution and I don’t feel an ounce of guilt. Guilt would imply that I was in some way culpable for slavery, lynchings, white flight, etc. when it is patently clear that I am not responsible for those things. Do you understand now why some of us don’t feel “white” guilt?

Please note that a lack of guilty feelings on my part does not preclude me from recognizing past or present injustices, acknowledging them, or acting to correct them. It just means I don’t feel any guilt.

Marc

[John_Mace]

If someone asks me what my ethnicity is, I say “European*”, which might as well be the same thing as “White American”, for those of us living in the US. My ancestors came from all over Europe, and my family never identified with any ancestral homeland. So I think it would be fair to say that my ethnicity, or cultural identity is “White American”. In the US, I think this works just as well for many, if not most, Whites as it does for Blacks. Neither is perfect, since there is a lot of overlap between so-called Black culture and White culture.

Having said that, I haven’t seen anything that Obama has said or done that would make him racist. And although Rev Wright seems to hold some odd views, I wouldn’t consider any of them to be overtly racist.

*Actually, I say “American” first, but that never satisfies them. They always want to know if you’re Irish or English or German or Italian or whatever. But the best I can say is “European”.

[Magiver]

Obama has maintained a 20 year relationship with a mentor who made racially insensitive remarks. He supported this man financially and incorporated him into every aspect of his family’s spiritual upbringing.

The argument that he was unaware of Wright’s shortcomings for those 20 years requires a leap of faith.

Ignoring the fact that he is a green Senator with no military experience he now has a 20 year association with Wright on his resume. He cannot reconcile the fact that he cut him loose when it became politically necessary while maintaining his relationship.

IMO, he used Wright to springboard himself locally. It was beneficial to use the AA community’s support. He neglected to consider the ramifications of a 20 year relationship with a racially insensitive mentor.

[Richard_Parker]

That strikes me as a fair assessment, Magiver.*

I disagree, but I think it’s fair.

It also strikes me as pretty far from establishing the Wright is a racist, much less than Obama is. Agreed?

• I don’t really know what “He cannot reconcile the fact that he cut him loose when it became politically necessary while maintaining his relationship” means, but I think I get the gist.

[Magiver]

[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
That strikes me as a fair assessment, Magiver.*

I disagree, but I think it’s fair.

It also strikes me as pretty far from establishing the Wright is a racist, much less than Obama is. Agreed?

• I don’t really know what “He cannot reconcile the fact that he cut him loose when it became politically necessary while maintaining his relationship” means, but I think I get the gist.
  [/QUOTE]
  I didn’t say he was a racist. and I’m not sure how to restate the sentence. Wright was used in Obama’s campaign until his sermons were publicised. That relationship has ended but Obama’s personal relationship with Wright is still intact. If Wright is still his friend/mentor then why was he cut loose?

[Richard_Parker]

[QUOTE=Magiver]
I didn’t say he was a racist.
[/quote]

Wasn’t saying you did. Just asking a follow-up question.

Wright was used in Obama’s campaign until his sermons were publicised. That relationship has ended but Obama’s personal relationship with Wright is still intact. If Wright is still his friend/mentor then why was he cut loose?

Because he is now a political liability, whatever one thinks of the underlying fairness of that liability.

[Magiver]

[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
Wasn’t saying you did. Just asking a follow-up question.

Because he is now a political liability, whatever one thinks of the underlying fairness of that liability.
[/QUOTE]
Had he migrated to a more diverse church and logged a few more years as Senator I think Obama would have greatly increased his chances. He’s an excellent speaker and very personable. I wasn’t too keen on his recent attempt to commit a percentage of GNP to 3rd world countries. It’s not his job to tithe my income and it suggests a liberal agenda. He needs to temper that kind of legislation.

[Belowjob2.0]

Getting back to one of Jekyll & Hyde’s other claims, does anyone really believe that Obama has a secret agenda to get “whitey”? An unprecedented white to black wealth transfer?

Most of Obama’s cabinet members will be white. Most of his advisers and campaign personnel are white. His Mom was white. The grandparents who raised him are white. Most of the donors who financed his campaign are white. Most of the powerful politicians who’ve endorsed him are white. So are the powerful, wealthy, behind the scenes guys like George Soros.

Are you also assuming that the overwhelmingly white Congress will just enact whatever Obama asks for with no objections or amendments?

Are all of these Ivy League educated, well to do, well connected white folks going to suddenly turn on America and destroy their communities? Sell out their children’s futures? Obama must have some powerful mind control mojo to pull that off.

Does Hyde recognize that many of the old school (corrupt, incompetent) black politicians are sticking with their Clinton endorsement? Here in LA, Maxine Waters is still solidly behind Clinton. The Congressional Black Caucus is still behind Clinton. The richest black man in America, the ever so sleazy Bob Johnson is solidly behind Clinton, to the point where he tried to publicly slime Obama with vile innuendo.

Please, Hyde. Tell me you get all this, and your accusations in the pit were some kind of whoosh.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=Belowjob2.0]
Getting back to one of Jekyll & Hyde’s other claims, does anyone really believe that Obama has a secret agenda to get “whitey”? An unprecedented white to black wealth transfer?
[/QUOTE]

Only, I should think, those who regard existing social programs as instances of such, and the less said of them the better.

[magellan01]

[QUOTE=jayjay]
It’s not (excuse the expression) black and white. It’s not a dichotomy between “tit for tat” and “clean slate like nobody got hurt”. The history has to be considered, is all I’m saying. You appear to be saying “Yeah, the United States, as a nation, enslaved you, then oppressed you, then refused you your rights, completely ignored lynching for decades, looked the other way while you were relegated to inferior schools, neighborhoods, jobs, and civic involvement, beat you and turned hoses on you when you got fed up with this, all in the name of keeping you in your ‘place’, but we can call it all even now, right?” I don’t think that’s going to happen. The history must be considered. You can’t just ignore it.
[/QUOTE]

I know this is the accepted wisdom, but I ask, why? Why can’t we just ignore it?

I’m not being cavalier here, but it is 2008, what would be so bad if we all just made believe it didn’t happen;we just refused to acknowledge it? We just go ahead and start doing what Dr. King hoped for. We just take race off the table. Every kid has the same things expected of him. If he fucks up, we address it. It doesn’t matter if he’s black or white or brown or green. If there are groups in kids in neighborhoods failing en masse, we address it, again without looking at skin color. The problems that are viewed as hitting black communities hardest can be fixed by looking at communities socio-economically. So, seriously, why, today, in 2008, can’t we just ignore it?

I see only three things that will be hurt by this approach:

1: merchants in race relations like Jesse Jackson will become even more obsolete
2: Young black kids will not receive constant reminders that they have an excuse if they do not succeed. This can only help more of them succeed.
3: whites who revel in guilt and use it to hoist themselves up on the high horse will have to find something else to feel bad/good about.

It seems to me that whatever racism still exists in our society would end most quickly by taking this tack. ANd that is the goal isn’t it? At some point, if we ever do want to achieve real equality, we will have to do this. So why not now? And if not now, when?

[Ocean_Annie]

[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
when you start condemning America as evil and a nation deserving of eternal damnation, that’s not a racist attitude, exactly, but it is a remarkably troubling one, especially for someone who wants to be president of the US and head of that very government. And when you see that the Rev. Wright has those opinions, and that Obama is so close to him, it raises the question, to what extent does Obama share his friend and mentor’s opinions.

Now, Obama has said he doesn’t share those opinions, and personally I believe him, but I don’think there’s anything wrong with asking the question. It’s the old saying, “You lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas.”
[/QUOTE]

The Rev Wright’s damnation of America isn’t any different than other well know evangelical ministers’ damnation of America. Comments like, Katrina was God’s punishment on New Orleans, and 9/11 was caused by America’s sin - the Godless ACLU - are in the same vein as Rev Wright’s one minute sound bite.

I don’t think Wright is a dirty dog as your adage suggests. Actually, he is a highly respected minister, but the media didn’t find it important to discuss the man’s accomplishments, kindness or philanthropy.

[E-Sabbath]

[QUOTE=magellan01]
I know this is the accepted wisdom, but I ask, why? Why can’t we just ignore it?
[/QUOTE]

Cause that would just be a lie. A well meaning lie, but a lie. A bandage over a wound. You know what happens when you just bandage over something without flushing it out first? It festers.

[jayjay]

[QUOTE=magellan01]
I know this is the accepted wisdom, but I ask, why? Why can’t we just ignore it?

I’m not being cavalier here, but it is 2008, what would be so bad if we all just made believe it didn’t happen;we just refused to acknowledge it? We just go ahead and start doing what Dr. King hoped for. We just take race off the table. Every kid has the same things expected of him. If he fucks up, we address it. It doesn’t matter if he’s black or white or brown or green. If there are groups in kids in neighborhoods failing en masse, we address it, again without looking at skin color. The problems that are viewed as hitting black communities hardest can be fixed by looking at communities socio-economically. So, seriously, why, today, in 2008, can’t we just ignore it?

I see only three things that will be hurt by this approach:

1: merchants in race relations like Jesse Jackson will become even more obsolete
2: Young black kids will not receive constant reminders that they have an excuse if they do not succeed. This can only help more of them succeed.
3: whites who revel in guilt and use it to hoist themselves up on the high horse will have to find something else to feel bad/good about.

It seems to me that whatever racism still exists in our society would end most quickly by taking this tack. ANd that is the goal isn’t it? At some point, if we ever do want to achieve real equality, we will have to do this. So why not now? And if not now, when?
[/QUOTE]

Are you seriously this naive? Do you actually believe that pretending the past hasn’t happened will end racism in this country?

[Hamlet]

[QUOTE=magellan01]
I know this is the accepted wisdom, but I ask, why? Why can’t we just ignore it?
[/quote]
In an ideal world, that would be great. We could all be colorblind, have happy little picnics with our warm fuzzy puppies and pick daffodils to wear in our ears. But here, in the real world, the vestiges of slavery, segregation, and racism still exist in this country. And until you deal honestly with these issues, including a discussion of the past, you’re not going to deal with the future.

Heck, just look at the 100 years after slavery ended and before segregation ended. This country pretty much just tried to pretend there weren’t any problems with slavery any more, so it changed to segregation. Maybe in another 100 years or 200, when everybody who suffered under segregation, everyone who had ever been the victim of a race based crime, when the power structure is fair, you’ll have a point. But we’re a long way from there.

@magellan

I see only three things that will be hurt by this approach:

1: merchants in race relations like Jesse Jackson will become even more obsolete
2: Young black kids will not receive constant reminders that they have an excuse if they do not succeed. This can only help more of them succeed.
3: whites who revel in guilt and use it to hoist themselves up on the high horse will have to find something else to feel bad/good about.

4. A bunch of pathetically blind right wingers won’t be able to cry “Reverse Racism!!!” and try to scare American voters into not voting for the candidate who happens to have a black father. It amuses me that the very people who have spent the last 40 some years decrying “merchants in race relations” are the first ones to pimp this scandal and cry “racism against whites”. The irony is delicious.

@magellan

It seems to me that whatever racism still exists in our society would end most quickly by taking this tack. ANd that is the goal isn’t it? At some point, if we ever do want to achieve real equality, we will have to do this. So why not now? And if not now, when?

Think of racism in this country as an infection in a cut. You can either deal with it by trying to sterilize it or you can ignore it and hope it gets better.

[Mr.Moto]

[QUOTE=Hamlet]
In an ideal world, that would be great. We could all be colorblind, have happy little picnics with our warm fuzzy puppies and pick daffodils to wear in our ears. But here, in the real world, the vestiges of slavery, segregation, and racism still exist in this country. And until you deal honestly with these issues, including a discussion of the past, you’re not going to deal with the future.

Heck, just look at the 100 years after slavery ended and before segregation ended. This country pretty much just tried to pretend there weren’t any problems with slavery any more, so it changed to segregation. Maybe in another 100 years or 200, when everybody who suffered under segregation, everyone who had ever been the victim of a race based crime, when the power structure is fair, you’ll have a point. But we’re a long way from there.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, well the vestiges of Italian oppression of the Southern peasantry and the vestiges of the oppression of Welsh coal miners are pretty clear as well - these both drove my ancestors to this country, and are responsible for my being here.

And for the first few generations, the families on both sides didn’t have money or country club invitations. My grandfather came over from Caserta in 1915 and made a living most of his life in petty crime - the stuff that feeds stereotypes seen on the Sopranos. His kids all did considerably better, and most of his grandchildren are reasonably successful.

So I’m not willing to dismiss racism at all, nor am I willing to disregard history. But if racism disappeared tomorrow, the black community would still have problems. With no significant racism going against them, whites in places like Appalachia or the Mon Valley where I grew up have a hard time. And with no great love for them from any established group here, people like the Koreans and the Vietnamese have managed to do pretty well.

So let’s call things what they are. One of the things I agreed with Obama with in his Philadelphia speech is that people can develop resentments even though they committed no racist acts themselves. Transitioning to a class- ot income-based affirmative action, as I have long advocated, could alleviate this.

I see no reason why the daughters of Barack and Michelle Obama should be given any break the white son of a West Virginia coal miner can’t get, or the daughter of a Filipino janitor. That can’t be considered fair anymore.

[gonzomax]

This discussion is veiled racism. Pretending that a pastor is a mentor is just an attempt to link Obama with an uppity black. Pastors are just pastors. They make enough noise to keep you from nodding off on Sunday mornings. They have very little to do with your life.
Wright is an uppity black ,therefore Obama is an uppity black. It is a dishonest analogy. To find out all I need about you people should I go to your pastor. Does he talk for you.
The racism is America will be revealed in this election. They wont be calling him nigger. They will link him to someone that a bigot can call a nigger. That is what is happening here.

[Frylock]

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
This discussion is veiled racism. Pretending that a pastor is a mentor is just an attempt to link Obama with an uppity black. Pastors are just pastors. They make enough noise to keep you from nodding off on Sunday mornings. They have very little to do with your life.
Wright is an uppity black ,therefore Obama is an uppity black. It is a dishonest analogy. To find out all I need about you people should I go to your pastor. Does he talk for you.
The racism is America will be revealed in this election. They wont be calling him nigger. They will link him to someone that a bigot can call a nigger. That is what is happening here.
[/QUOTE]

Didn’t Obama call Wright a mentor in his speech?

-FrL-

[Mr.Moto]

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
This discussion is veiled racism. Pretending that a pastor is a mentor is just an attempt to link Obama with an uppity black. Pastors are just pastors. They make enough noise to keep you from nodding off on Sunday mornings. They have very little to do with your life.
[/QUOTE]

For most people this might be the case, but it isn’t so of Obama. He has cited Wright’s influence on him, and he has donated tens of thousands of dollars to the church.

I think we have to take him at his word on this, based on what he said and his serious financial commitment to Trinity.

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
This discussion is veiled racism. Pretending that a pastor is a mentor…
[/QUOTE]

Once again, gonzo, you have the facts wrong. Rev Wright was Obama’s (spiritual) mentor for years. He wasn’t just the pastor of the church that Obama went to. They had a strong personal relationship, and the guy was his religious adviser for his campaign. He officiated at his wedding, baptized his children and inspired the title of his book: The Audacity of Hope. Obama identified Wright as the person who connected him with Christianity. Remember, Obama grew up in a more or less secular household-- one not tied to any particular religion. It wasn’t until he was an adult that he found Christianity, with the help of Wright.

When you start with a false premise, you can prove just about anything.