Assuming that the cite is accurate in the first place - it’s Free Republic - I just showed you that David Duke did about as well as George H. W. Bush did with black voters in Louisiana. And you’ve already posted that Democrats continued to gain bigger shares of the black vote in every presidential election after that. If we could compare the black vote in Louisiana over the years I think we’d see movement toward the Democrats there, too.
OK, I guess we’ll have to wait until 2016 to see if the trend continues.
If we’re both still around, I’m willing to bet right now that the next Deomocratic candidate, if white, will win a lower percentage of the black vote than Obama did this time. Until then I will shut up on this topic.
To be honest, when you apply more depth to it, it’s not that funny. It has very real and relevant ties to a deep rooted history of inequality and racial/cultural division in this country, when you expand upon the motivations for such a statement.
Looking at it in a vacuum, we can say “oh, double-standard”-- and from such a perspective, we’d be right; however, it would also represent a gross oversimplification of the significance of the idea, or better yet, the situation, and why any given person would posses such a bold attitude. In itself, the former idea demonstrates a fair amount of indifference, and as it can be viewed as dismissive, perpetuates ideas like hers. When viewed through the grander scope of social equality, it’s just far more complex.
I understand why she said it, and I also understand why it would be different had a white person said the same thing. Historically, the two have faced different hurdles when it comes to equality in this country, and within this context, the motivation for ideas and intent behind decisions, carries a much different meaning and purpose.
Isn’t there a pretty obvious explanation for the decline in Republican votes by black people in Louisiana in 2008? Hurricane Katrina and the Republican administration’s handling of it.
Seriously, Sam, it makes f1 feel better about racism in the world to conclude that black people must have voted for Obama because he was black. So there. We’re even, right? Every time he hears a white person say they want the nigger out of the White House, he can smug to himself, “Well black people voted for Obama because he’s black, so it’s a two way street!” I mean, other racial groups voted for Obama in higher numbers too, but you know, they had reasons. Not the blacks, though. Nope. It was race.
So I saw a poll on NBC News (no link, sorry, this was on TV) stating that in 2004, 49% of poll respondents said they believed the nation was on the wrong track. In 2008, 75% said so. That’s a huge jump. Man, that sure is a lot of angry black people.
Both have strong roots in ignorance, can stem from conscious decisions, and are equally harmful. You’re making a distinction which isn’t defined by any of these ideas, and in the process, possibly inferring more than you intend to.
The problem is that this wouldn’t prove what you think it does, without some legitimate means of validation, probably beyond our individual capacities. In the same way anecdotes have previously been applied in this thread, we can extract any number of conclusions from future results. For all we know, a generally positive Obama presidency could inspire future minorities to vote in consistent or larger numbers, making both “sides” correct.
That said, the counterpoints you’ve faced in this thread, don’t necessarily disprove you in a grander sense; though I do believe they properly apply your own logic to the argument, and upon folding it unto itself to include other demographics, show that yours is hard position to debate from. In other words, I wouldn’t bet on anything, that I couldn’t unambiguously prove.
Otherwise, yes, there are a number of single issue or undecided voters which exist in every election, which I think is an easier and more agreeable stance to take. As I started to allude to above, the grassroots campaign Obama used, was key in grabbing these types of voters, and we saw the results in many areas.
Large swath of angry black people.
Who’s the Republican candidate and what’s his or her platform? That has to enter into the equation.
I didn’t vote for Obama because he’s black. I voted for Obama because, along with multiple other reasons,** I’M **Black. Important distinction.
hahahaaaaaaa!
I, a white guy, didn’t vote for Obama because he’s black. But that was certainly a positive in his corner.
In a racist society such as ours, race does matter, and ignoring its impact is silly. If you’re race-blind in a racist society, that’s just called being blind, and you’ll not see what’s going on.
Many of my students are black. They notice that our society is racially stratified (far more than my white kids notice, in general). In 2007, they noticed that in a country 12% black, 0% of their nation’s leaders had ever been black. That told them something about their own chances. It also told their white peers something about the black students’ chances, although the white students were less likely to be aware of what they noticed.
In 2008, they all noticed something new: turns out it’s possible for black people to become the most powerful person in the country. White and black kids both learned something very important then.
This is not just a lesson for kids, either. None of us are really race-blind, however much some folks might like to pat themselves on the back for their pretense of race-blindness. We all notice such things. It changes the country to break the streak of white people being president.
If we weren’t such a racist (or racially divided if you prefer) nation, it wouldn’t matter. But we are, so it does.
Other things are important, of course. If I’d thought Clinton had been a truly better candidate than Obama, I would have voted for her. If I’d thought Biden had been a better candidate, I would have voted for him. But neither of them were better, so we got the nice plus of a black president.
That said, I’ve spent my life with a white, race-conscious power structure in charge that basically looks out for people who look like me. I’ve played life on the easy setting without ever having to ask for it. Why on earth would I object to a black person who tries to change the power structure such that it spends just a titch more time looking out for people who look like them? As long as it’s still so overwhelming biased in favor of folks who look like me, that’d be mighty graceless of me.
racism[ rey-siz-uh m ]
noun
1.a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.hatred or intolerance of another race or other races
-Dictionary.com
non se·qui·tur/ˌnän ˈsekwitər/
Noun:
A conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.
Synonyms:
paralogism
Yeah well, it wasn’t supposed to follow the previous statement. I only ready the first page or two. I’m a bit tired of reading after spending the last week reading the voter ID thread in the Pit. All 42(?) pages of it.
Saying, “I didn’t bother to read the whole thread before adding a useless non sequitur post of my own” isn’t exactly a strong defense of your behavior.
Ok. I didn’t read one page of the thread. I did however read where some people used completely different definitions of the word which was causing some confusion. I posted the definition as it stands on Dictionary.com as a means to offer another perspective(provided those readers would acknowledge one). What behavior would that be? If the problem stands that I didn’t quote them to avoid more confusion and add emphasis in the part that was relevant then I will do so next time.
But the dictionary.com cite has three different definitions, so it’s useless for what you were aiming for. Plus real-life uses of words, especially big concept words like racism, are not always encapsulated in a dictionary definition. It’s also kinda insulting to assume that everyone but you is incapable of using a dictionary. It’s really quite an annoying thing to do.
That was not my intent.(To imply others are imcapable of using a dictionary) I apologize. I was more or less posting to show that there are multiple definitions to the word that could have applied to someone’s argument instead of sticking to a sole definition.
I should have specified who my post applied to and I mentioned that earlier.
We should stop derailing this thread.
There is no white culture. There is a black culture. The black culture came about because its members were discriminated against and banded together. The same thing happened with white people, but not all into one basic group. The different minorities became their own cultures, losing the other distinctions between them. The only real “white culture” is amongst white supremacists, who are, of course, a minority.
You cannot equate voting for a black person because you are black and voting for a white person because you are white. You can say they’re both racist, but it’s the same type of racism that allows for “black only” organizations but not white ones. It’s acceptable racism.
OK I’ll bite. Why the hell would you think that there is “black culture” but not “white culture?”
Do you really think “acceptable racism” is a good idea? Isn’t that just going to lead to more racism? And isn’t increasing racism going to ultimately hurt black people in the long run?
What do you mean, ‘I’ll bite’? He already fed it to you. Spit it out or chew. He said white people group off in sub cultures ( Italian community, Irish community,etc.) while black people tended to cleave together… The atmosphere of being poor, oppressed, disenfranchised and excluded created a culture of food and music and art that reflected that environment. Of course you may not agree with that, but to me it seemed clear what Big T was saying.