View Full Version : White Supremacist
Melonie
01-25-2008, 03:04 PM
i think his issues are almost a moot point. there are people who will never vote for him simply because he's black, and there are people who will vote for him ONLY because he is black. it's a shame, really.
yes, it's discouraging. However, it's even MORE discouraging because all of this racial business re Obama is coming from the democratic party ... who is supposedly the 'champion' for racial equality and providing equal opportunities for black, white and hispanic Americans alike.
Furthermore, polls out of SC show that Obama has HUGE support among black voters, apparently based solely on his race. This has prompted some SC democratic leaders to remind black SC voters what is really important when voting for a democratic candidate ...
(snip)"Stacey Jones, a Benedict College Dean who described herself as "a woman, an African American, a size 9 wide and any other label you choose to use," said she understood why many blacks might pause before voting Saturday for Clinton.
"For some of us it may take a very, very bold step to walk into that voting booth and focus on our community's future rather than acting on pure emotion. Let's do the right thing and elect Sen. Hillary Clinton president of the United States," she said to applause.
She was followed by Richland County Councilwoman Bernice Scott, who bluntly told the audience "this race is not about race or gender."
Scott said the decision should come down to which candidate can "feed the sheep."
"Senator Clinton has a record that can feed everybody. And we need to be fed," she said."(snip)
from
Casual Observer
01-25-2008, 08:55 PM
I'm not exactly proud of the fact that I get an unspoken advantage wherever I go, but it is what it is and it seems like slowly it's changing for the better.
Misplaced white guilt only exacerbates the problem and feeds the race industry a la Sharpton, Mfume, Jackson, West, et al.
I love hearing about how white trash somehow has an unspoken advantage.
Race isn't nearly the divisive element that socio-economic class is.
Pamela
01-25-2008, 09:18 PM
yes, it's discouraging. However, it's even MORE discouraging because all of this racial business re Obama is coming from the democratic party ... who is supposedly the 'champion' for racial equality and providing equal opportunities for black, white and hispanic Americans alike.
Furthermore, polls out of SC show that Obama has HUGE support among black voters, apparently based solely on his race. This has prompted some SC democratic leaders to remind black SC voters what is really important when voting for a democratic candidate ...
(snip)"Stacey Jones, a Benedict College Dean who described herself as "a woman, an African American, a size 9 wide and any other label you choose to use," said she understood why many blacks might pause before voting Saturday for Clinton.
"For some of us it may take a very, very bold step to walk into that voting booth and focus on our community's future rather than acting on pure emotion. Let's do the right thing and elect Sen. Hillary Clinton president of the United States," she said to applause.
She was followed by Richland County Councilwoman Bernice Scott, who bluntly told the audience "this race is not about race or gender."
Scott said the decision should come down to which candidate can "feed the sheep."
"Senator Clinton has a record that can feed everybody. And we need to be fed," she said."(snip)
from
And that is just sad to read. Vote for a person you don't even no shit about, never watch or hear what he has to offer the US, but he's black so he got the black votes. Talk about a bunch of BS!
I'm a white woman and i am still tossing around watching Hillary & Obama. It can go either way for me. I just need to learn more and hope they stop this race versus sex crap.
leilanicandy
01-26-2008, 04:23 AM
MsQwerty - I think sexism is much more pervasive than racism in this country, and hence I think we'll have a black male president before we have a white female one. Black men got the vote before we women did, they got civil rights before we did, and they won their civil rights with signs saying "I AM A MAN." And I see a lot more respect for Obama than I see for any other female leader.
Hun by law women was allow to vote way in the 1920's. Because women choose not to vote. It did not mean they have the right! In fact blacks was not able to vote until the 1960's. Guess what yek. The USA is suppose to renew blacks voting rights. So it can be a perment . You know like for white women, they had the perment right to vote. Yet they just extended the process, to give blacks.The right to vote for another year. Yet racism is not as pervasive as sexism::) Wow I guess civial rights for some mean you have limitations, on what you do and where you go! Like gees, blacks could not drink out the same water fountain as whites. I guess you call that freedom. Black men could not walk threw the front door. But white women could, well I guess you call that freedom. I guess being treated like a dog is consider freedom, to some people.
That would of course depend on what you considered "freedom."
There were a few places where women could vote prior to 1920, true (like Wisconsin). But social pressure not to vote was just as strong, or to vote with one's husband, and there was the assumption that female suffrage gave married men an unfair "double vote" because OF COURSE a woman would vote however her husband told her to. Then there was the social implication that nice ladies didn't concern themselves with matters like that, and other factors like abuse; I'd be very surprised if women had a greater political voice than black men at any time since the Civil War. Even in the 60's and 70's, women were told to take a back seat to the race movement.
Well because you was told to do something, and by law you did not have too! It dose not mean women did not have freedom. White women had freedom by law, just not from sterotypes. In which they struggle to over come today. As of blacks, they had partial freedom by law. Blacks also have sterotypes, and they where treated like the scum under neath the earth. But I guess you can say boo hoo! So what they was targeted for hate crimes. When they where minding there own business. So what there children and church where burned. There family was harass. Well I dont recall a big assoication nation wide going around tourting women.
I know you are so ever angry, towards the way some men act towards women. It just ruffles your little feathers. How would you feel if you and your family was targeted all the time because of your color. Maybe the jews can better understand it, because of what they went thru with Hitler. It is the same thing, yet the goverment is not the one doing this to the blacks. If you dont count the racist people that sit it the goverment seats. But they sit and wacth which is just as bad! But I guess that is just a way of life. Awe Poor blacks
Hilliary is not getting the respect, a lot women want her to get! Because of who she is, as a person. There has been many women, who have done a well known job. That people look up and say, she knows her stuff! But Hilliary is not one of them! This is why she get no respect.
Melonie
01-26-2008, 04:27 PM
Race isn't nearly the divisive element that socio-economic class is.
You've certainly got that right. The 'tin foil hat' crowd will tell you that socio-economic class is exactly what the 2008 election will be about ... with both Hilary and Obama promising to 'feed the sheep' ( a reference to expanded gov't benefits to the 'poor' and unskilled working class - see my previous post ) at the expense of actual higher taxes on the 'middle class' plus lip service higher taxes on the 'upper class' (which won't actually be collected thanks to tax exemptions / credits / loopholes).
The 'tin foil hat' crowd would also make the point that the 2008 election will probably be the LAST opportunity where 'middle class' Americans can muster enough votes to protect their own future paychecks from the 'tyranny of the majority' ... i.e. 'poor' Americans plus civil servants who want to see more money collected from 'middle class' Americans so that it can be transferred to benefit themselves, plus the 'upper class' who want to see their gov't subsidized industry profits / tax breaks continued.
If there's any doubt about the intentions of the candidates, just take a look at this week's 'economic stimulus' proposal. Full time dancers or anybody else earning more than $75k per year will get zero, zippo, nada in the way of a tax rebate - but they WILL get a future tax rate increase to make up for the $600+ in gov't tax money to be 'given' to every working American earning $50k or less ... even given to those Americans earning less than $30k who don't actually pay anything in the form of income taxes ( making the term tax 'rebate' incorrect, it is actually a 'gift'). Also, senate democrats are not happy with the terms of the 'economic stimulus' proposal, and are trying to find ways to tack on an increase in food stamp payouts, an increase in gov't funded home heating assistance etc. for those Americans earning less than $30k per year, an extension beyond 26 weeks for unemployment checks etc.
From the standpoint of a dancer, perhaps there is some merit in the idea of voting for Hilary or Barack and then dropping back from working 5 nights a week to only 2 nights a week. If you continue to work 5 nights a week, you're likely to be subject to a 40% combined income tax rate reducing your $75k gross income to $45k after taxes. This amount of income makes you ineligible for food stamps / subsidized rent / subsidized heat / medicaid meaning that all of these things have to be paid for out of pocket. On the other hand if you drop back to working only 2 nights a week, your effective income tax rate will be essentially zero meaning that you'll get to keep $29k+ of your $30k in gross income. But at that level of income you also become eligible for food stamps / subsidized rent / subsidized heat / medicaid etc. meaning that your de-facto cost of subsidized rent plus utility bills plus medical bills will be reduced by say $500 a month = $6k per year ... resulting in a standard of living equivalent to a $29k + $6k = $35k income level. So bottom line is that under the likely future redistribution policies of Hilary or Barack, you can decide to work 2 days a week and achieve a standard of living equivalent to a $35k income level, or you can decide to work more than twice as hard i.e. 5 days a week and achieve a standard of living equivalent to a $45k income level that is only 45/35 = 28% better off than working 2 days a week. It's no coincidence that statistics clearly show that Americans who are eligible for social welfare programs typically only work 15 hours per week !!!
I love hearing about how white trash somehow has an unspoken advantage.
As to 'poor' Americans I also agree that 'poor' white voters and 'poor' hispanic voters are viewed by the candidates as being 'up for grabs', whereas 'poor' black voters are viewed as being a 'lock' for the democratic candidate. Thus the candidates may decide to propose measures that would specifically benefit 'poor' white voters and/or 'poor' hispanic voters, whereas no such specific proposals are likely to be fronted in regard to 'poor' black voters. Such is the price of monolithic democrat party support for the past two generations.
~
TheSexKitten
01-26-2008, 07:56 PM
I love hearing about how white trash somehow has an unspoken advantage.
Way to twist my words... here's a more articulate person to explain what I meant:
Deogol
01-27-2008, 08:32 AM
Way to twist my words... here's a more articulate person to explain what I meant:
Ha! I almost stopped reading when I saw a college in the URL. Between their "free speech zones" and the lunatic left I am beginning to hold their humanities departments in complete disregard.
Then I saw it was from the Journalism School. Yea, the same crowd who paints you all as drug addicted and daddy fucked. Something to keep in mind with their understanding of the world.
By third paragraph where the student concedes it "exists" -- debating college students is usually as easy as taking candy from a child -- and about as nice.
Rewrite the essay as social class status and one has it a little more truthful.
Yekhefah
01-27-2008, 09:26 AM
Hun by law women was allow to vote way in the 1920's. Because women choose not to vote. It did not mean they have the right! In fact blacks was not able to vote until the 1960's. Guess what yek. The USA is suppose to renew blacks voting rights. So it can be a perment . You know like for white women, they had the perment right to vote. Yet they just extended the process, to give blacks.The right to vote for another year. Yet racism is not as pervasive as sexismWow I guess civial rights for some mean you have limitations, on what you do and where you go! Like gees, blacks could not drink out the same water fountain as whites. I guess you call that freedom. Black men could not walk threw the front door. But white women could, well I guess you call that freedom. I guess being treated like a dog is consider freedom, to some people.
I don't think I follow you. Black men were awarded the right to vote under the 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870, a full half-century before a similar amendment was passed for women. I'm aware that intimidation hindered full suffrage, but that was the same for women too. As for Jim Crow laws (which were not widespread but confined to a few states), women have been discriminated against in other comparable ways.
The rest of your post was incredibly rude and unnecessary. Please DO NOT put such words in my mouth ever again. This isn't a pissing contest. I'm not saying that black men have had no problems or that civil rights aren't worth fighting for. I'm just saying that Obama seems to be better-respected than Clinton because sexism runs deeper than racism in our culture.
kikidejavu
01-27-2008, 09:53 AM
REASONS WHY POOR BLACK SCHOOLS DO BAD
Its not because of discrimination per say, but at the same time it is.
Poor schools don't have money for books, computers, field trips. The parents dont have money to send their child to tutors, or lessons for anything. And with most parents working two or three minimum wage jobs to buy food, and pay rent, they are not at home to help kids with homework. Many times there are no cars in the home in which to transport kids to afterschool activities, and with most high schoolers working to help support the family, there is no time anyway.
With inadequete educational resources, these kids cannot compete with suburban schools on a college application, and if they do manage to get in the school, how are they to pay for it? Scholarships go to students who had time to do homework, and activities because they weren't working. Loans go to people with good credit, which no poor parent has, and no 18 year old has.
This is assuming that in attempting to help their parents with rent and food, they haven't done illegal activities causing them to end up in jail, or by living in a bad neighborhood, haven't been a victim of a drive-by shooting. So many don't make it to 18.
So after going through all the drama that goes with being poor, most kids give up, on college and believing there is more out there, because they have never seen anything more than hard times and struggling. They settle for low paying jobs because with no college its all they can get. its a mentality that sets in, and they just give up
With white households making an average of 515% more money than black households, clearly something is off. I believe barack and hillary simply want to give these poor kids an opportunity to be able to compete with the suburban kids for colleges and jobs, because right now they are at a disadvantage that tricks them into believing they cant be anything more.
Of course there are always the few that perservere, and make it out of the projects to go to harvard or wherever, but they are so few and far between. What about the rest of them?
Melonie
01-27-2008, 10:53 AM
Poor schools don't have money for books, computers, field trips.
I'm afraid that I have to call 'bulls#!t' on this point ... because the per student educational spending on inner city schools with some of the highest percentages of black students i.e. Washington DC, New York City, Chicago etc. is far above the average level of gov't educational spending at predominantly white suburban schools (like DC is $14k per year per student, while suburban Virginia is like $7k per year per student). Thus calls from democratic politicians to increase gov't educational spending has already been proven not to work ... which in turn proves that the root of the problem lies elsewhere. However, it IS possible that the huge amount of gov't tax money being poured into inner city schools is in fact not reaching the students, but you'll have to ask the (predominantly democratic) local politicians and school administrators where all of that gov't tax money is going instead.
A number of exhaustive studies have been done to try and determine where the root of the problem actually lies. the results of one study can be found at One fact that turns up over and over again is that 85% of 'poor' black children are the result of a 'fatherless' home. The reasons for this are many, but a major one is that the social welfare benefit system also advocated by Hilary and Barack provides a strong incentive for pregnant black girls NOT to get married in order to assure eligibility for those social welfare benefits.
Another factor that keeps turning up in these studies is that most black Americans choose to continue residing in economically depressed northern cities and/or cities with little opportunity for unskilled job growth, whereas many white and hispanic Americans are willing to relocate to other cities / states / regions where the economic opportunities are far better. Again the reasons for this are many, but a major one is that the states / regions where economic opportunities are far better typically do NOT offer social welfare benefit programs that are anywhere near as generous as those available in cities / states with high concentrations of urban black residents. Arguably, part of the reason that these other states / regions have healthier economies in the first place is that state and local tax burdens on businesses and working residents are nowhere near as high ... since their funding requirements for social welfare programs are far lower.
Another very clear trend that keeps turning up in these studies is the fact that the 'gangsta' subculture has become so pervasive that young black people now have a different 'purpose' for attending educational institutions. See . Ironically, the same 'gangsta' subculture casts negative aspersions on young black students who do make a major effort to prepare themselves for success in the 'globalized' American economy of the future, by casting them as 'sellouts'.
(snip)"Despite the school's many constructive steps to prevent future student and sexual violence, the fact that one student could beat a fellow student with a baseball bat suggests that a new culture of violence has seeped into the hallowed halls of learning.
Subsequently, additional incidents of violence, murder and rape surfaced in the Atlanta University Center that underscored the presence of a new "thug" and "gangsta" subculture on many campuses. This subculture must be challenged and rooted out lest the public lose good will and confidence in black schools. These negative behaviors must not be excused or tolerated. They threaten the very future of the institutions that the village needs for its health.
The challenge both to the colleges and to the village is how we can transform the culture of purposelessness and redirect those energies into village renewal. The key to repairing the problems inside HBCUs lies in reaching and nurturing children long before they graduate from high school. Purposeless college students probably didn't acquire the bad habits when they arrived on campus, they brought them along.
Therefore, schools must become centers for both intellectual and character development. Every school."(snip)
All of this as a whole puts black Americans in a position of being steamrolled by globalism ... an environment in which they are woefully ill prepared to successfully compete. Arguably, heavy black voter support for Hilary or Barack will only perpetuate this situation ... as least as long as Hilary or Barack are still able to come up with the tax money to continue funding generous social welfare programs to 'feed the sheep' (see my first post on this page) and to continue to maintain the status quo in regard to big city public education systems.
(snip)"Black people in America must immediately disengage from the diversions of mind-deadening entertainment, useless sports, hyper-sexuality, excessive social celebrations, pointless conversations and debates, meaningless media and the civil rights issue de jour approach to managing our problems. We must focus on the most important issue in our communities -- making education the highest priority. We must create a culture of literacy and learning that replaces intellectual apathy and resistance to educational progress. Somehow, we must re-inspire our children to want to learn and to love to learn. But having educated children is not enough. We must have educated families and educated communities. Every Black man, woman and child must become part of this new community of learners.
Black America must take education out of the schools and universities and root it in our homes, our workplaces, our communities, our churches and even in our streets and prisons. The purpose of education as defined by the Equipped for the Future initiative, a federally sponsored effort to develop a framework for accountability in adult education, is to help people actualize their roles in society as parent/family members, citizen/community members and workers in the economy. If the education system that serves us is not meeting these objectives, it is a disservice to our children and our communities.
The ability of a people to survive in changing times is not magic, nor is it by chance. Success depends on that people being able to change to survive in a new environment! And new environments demand new skills for survival. Equipped for the Future tells us that without certain basic skills, survival will be extremely difficult for Black people, or any people, in the 21st century.(snip)
Also please take note that both of my snippets were written by black American authors !
Along another line, while the studies have fairly sketchy results so far, it appears that the fastest economic and educational progress which has ever occurred for any segment of black Americans is the economic and educational progress obtained by relocated Hurricane Katrina victims who formerly resided in New Orleans. The theory goes that, thanks to the destruction of the monolithic New Orleans black community with it's inner city schools and generous social welfare benefits, and the 'forced' relocation of small numbers of predominantly black New Orleans hurricane victims to different towns / villages / smaller cities in different states - where the inner city school paradigm, the welfare system paradigm, and a de-facto lack of geographic integration were no longer prevalent - these black Americans were able to escape the 'bonds' imposed on them in New Orleans by the gov't policies also advocated by Hilary and Barack and thus have been able to make significant economic and educational progress through their own efforts.
~
britt244
01-27-2008, 11:46 AM
I'm just saying that Obama seems to be better-respected than Clinton because sexism runs deeper than racism in our culture.
may i ask by who? in general? or through what media? because i don't always think this is the case.
kikidejavu
01-27-2008, 11:47 AM
Poor people cannot afford to live anywhere but in economically depressed areas! It's either live in a bad neighborhood, or spend every dime you have on rent, leaving none for food, or bills or other living expenses!
and sweetie, you cannot argue with me on the economic disparities in urban, and suburban schools. The schools are funded by taxes, and poor people pay less taxes, therefore less money for the schools. In most poor communties, there are large amounts of people on welfare, so they dont contribute any money to the schools! The amount of money that the government contributes to the poorer schools is a drop in the bucket. Government money and poor taxes combined does not even come close to equaling the amount of taxes that are contributed by rich neighborhoods to rich schools.
which goes back to why they don't have books or computers. Like i said poor students cannot build up their college apps, like suburbanites because, their school can't afford to offer many programs, their parents can't afford to put them in anything or be home to help them, transportation issues, and the fact that many have to work.
The difference in simply going to a suburban school to play a softball game used to bring tears to the eyes of my whole team, just seeing everything that we didn't have.
The gangsta mentality,(brought on by the illegal moneymaking simply to feed your family, ands put a roof over their heads)
and the idea that it is ok, for a father not to be in the home, is crushing blow to the black community and goes back to what I said about the mentality that is so common to those growing up in poverty. Living the poverty lifestyle your entire life puts people in a diffrent mindset. Like i said this is all they know, and all they think they can get.
and i hate to say this, because it was a long time ago, and people say to get over it, but how can i get over slavery when the effects are still felt today? although we now have equal rights, blacks have never fully recovered from slavery. We have always been worse off educationally, and because of that financially. If you look at the averages in salaries blacks have always been worse off. And when people are poor, there is more crime, more disease, more fucked up attitudes about life.
Casual Observer
01-27-2008, 12:09 PM
Way to twist my words... here's a more articulate person to explain what I meant:
I got your meaning, TSK, but I'm pretty sure you didn't get mine.
My point, is that there is this notion of white privilege that completely ignores any concept of socio-economic status or cultural presence, because it's a reductionist position to take that by merely being white, you are imbued with greater social capabilities, expectations and results than if you're not white.
There are tens of millions of whites in the US that fall well under the poverty line--many more than the total population of blacks in the US, which means they fall below the radar of the MSM and certainly that of our political leadership. Yet they are effectively invisible, politically, economically and culturally.
No one is disputing that blacks are disproportionately poor vis a vis their numbers in the population. No one is disputing much of the disenfranchisement of generationally impoverished blacks stems from poor social engineering policies designed to assist them.
At the end of the day, poor white trash doesn't have any more of an advantage than a poor black kid in the ghetto or the delta. Step on to a college campus--you'll see exactly what I mean.
Melonie
01-27-2008, 02:09 PM
and sweetie, you cannot argue with me on the economic disparities in urban, and suburban schools. The schools are funded by taxes, and poor people pay less taxes, therefore less money for the schools. In most poor communties, there are large amounts of people on welfare, so they dont contribute any money to the schools! The amount of money that the government contributes to the poorer schools is a drop in the bucket.
Well your theory certainly has 'believability' for those who WANT to believe, but where the facts are concerned your theory doesn't hold water. The fact you conveniently leave out is that the top 1% of American earners pay out 39% of all income tax dollars. Thus it really doesn't matter if 97% of big city residents earn so little as to pay no income taxes at all as long as there are three top 1% earners living and working in that big city to make up the dollar difference. And guess where highly paid corporate execs, doctors, lawyers, performers etc. live and work ... it's not in a middle class suburb, that's for sure.
The same point applies in terms of property taxes. While over 90% of the properties may indeed be 'substandard', the other 10% consists of millionaire penthouses plus fancy commercial property plus gentrified townhouses etc.
And just in case the high tax take from the very rich big city dwellers doesn't totally make up for the low tax take from the urban 'poor', the federal gov't operates a huge program called 'block grants for cities'. The essence of this program is to collect federal tax money from residents of middle class suburbs and rural towns, and to then transfer that tax money into the hands of big city politicians to be spent as they deem best. Most states also operate a miniature version of this 'block grants for cities program', where state tax revenues collected in middle class suburbs and rural towns is transferred to the big cities as well.
Again the facts support a conclusion that there is NOT a shortage of funding for big city schools. If in fact the money that IS available doesn't actually make it all the way to the classrooms, somebody needs to be questioning the (predominantly democratic) local politicians and school administrators as to where this money is actually being spent.
And when people are poor, there is more crime, more disease, more fucked up attitudes about life.
Again you are putting forth a 'believable' theory that is not supported by historical fact. Historical fact tends to support an alternate theory that, when times get tough, poor families pull together to help each other over the roughest spots. However, thanks to Deo's aptly described 'misguided social engineering' by (mostly democratic) politicians, the black family structure has been steadily assaulted for the past 40 years for reasons such as social welfare benefit eligibility. As such, when times get tough today, most poor black people do not have much of a family to fall back on ... and instead are motivated to 'help themselves' via crime. The 'gangsta' subculture certainly glamorizes crime and violence as well.
although we now have equal rights, blacks have never fully recovered from slavery. We have always been worse off educationally, and because of that financially. If you look at the averages in salaries blacks have always been worse off
Well I certainly can't speak to the lingering psychological scars of someone's great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather having been a victim of slavery. But more recent history can speak to the persistent lack of education and thus lack of earnings. For example, at the end of the Vietnam war, a whole bunch of Vietnamese refugees emigrated to the USA. They were desparately poor, they did not speak english, and they had very little in the way of formal education. Yet two generations later their grandchildren typically excel in educational accomplishment as well as in business success. Same situation exists for Bosnian / Serbian refugees who came to Americas in the early 1990's being desparately poor and not speaking english now achieving a good amount of economic success and their children achieving good educational accomplishment.
No, there has to be something else going on here ... and lingering psychological scars from 6 generations ago, while certainly an important issue, cannot adequately explain why other desparately poor 'minorities' have been successful in America while, by and large, black Americans have not. Some would claim that the difference in results can be correlated to the fact that the Vietnamese, the Serbians etc. maintained strong family units, and also that the Vietnamese, the Serbians etc. chose not to accept social welfare benefits as a permanent part of their American lives.
~
kikidejavu
01-27-2008, 04:06 PM
that may be true when it comes to big cities but most people dont live in la new york or chicago If you live in a town where most people dont have money, there isn't much tax money for schools. Mind you that top 1% will usually live in a nice suburban town with other top 1%ers and their taxes go to their nice suburban town schools
you can say what you want about taxes, and block grants, but in poor areas there are poor schools, and in rich areas there are rich schools. You truly seem to think that are these schools are getting equal funding!!! they are not!!! I dont care what the studies say schools in compton and schools in beverly hills are not the same! and the kids do not have the same opportunities. And im not saying its impossible for these kids to move ahead, but i am saying that it is a whole lot harder to stay motivated without a computer, and when you are wondering where your next meal will come from.
Having family has little bearing on the effects of poverty, unless your family is rich. Yes i can have a close knit family, but if we are all poor and none of us have money to eat, then we can be as close as we want to be but we are still gonna be hungry. and im still going to have to rob this liquor store to get money because grandpa had a heart attack, and has no insurance. you see what i mean? and lack of basic neccessities causes an i dont give a fuck attitude. Im not saying this is acceptable, but i am telling you what goes through the minds of impoverished and at times desperate people
And you totally did not get what i said about slavery, i am not talking about emotional effects but i am talking about how we have never matched up with whites in terms of money. In general White households have always had more money than black households dating back to slavery. Thats what i meant.
Thats great for the Vietnamese but is a completly different situation. They were not born and raised in America, and had a completly different state of mind. They came here with the intentions to make a better life for themselves they saw America as a land of opportunities. Whereas poor blacks have always been given the shit end of the stick by America, and many think that there is no opportunity here. and its like all your life you see that if you have a baby, you wont have to work and the state will take care of you. You see that the only people with money are the people doing illegal activity. And hell if you ever meet anyone who moves out of the neighborhood, much less with a college degree.
Once again I will say that its the poverty mentality that does so many of my people in. But just like kids who grow up with money, generally continue in that, kids who grow up without generally continue in that thus perpetuating the cycle
Yekhefah
01-27-2008, 05:03 PM
may i ask by who? in general? or through what media? because i don't always think this is the case.
Just overall. That's how it seems to me. Then again, I do tend to listen to conservative talk radio and read conservative media, and they REALLY hate Hillary so that may color my perspective. But I haven't heard any personal aspersion against Obama, which can't be said of Clinton. I hear people saying that Obama lacks experience or is underqualified, but Clinton is referred to as a conniving bitch or a manipulative harpy or any other sexist epithet. Because sexism is so pervasive, people pay a lot more attention to her gender and deal with her on that level, rather than arguing her points as a politician.
Not that I'd vote for either of them, mind. But I haven't seen Obama personally disrespected to anywhere near the degree that Clinton is.
kikidejavu
01-27-2008, 05:22 PM
yekhefah, you're a conservative dancer? that's definitely not the conservative stereotype lol
Yekhefah
01-27-2008, 05:29 PM
:laughing: I know, I'm a conservative Jewish stripper!
I'm conservative in the original libertarian sense though, small government and low taxes and the government staying the hell out of my life. I'm very nearly as disgusted with the Republicans and their liberal tax-and-spend policy as with the Democrats and theirs. I'm a conservative because I like my money and I want to keep it, and I like being a stripper and I want to keep the freedom to be one!
leilanicandy
01-27-2008, 05:30 PM
I don't think I follow you. Black men were awarded the right to vote under the 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870, a full half-century before a similar amendment was passed for women. I'm aware that intimidation hindered full suffrage, but that was the same for women too. As for Jim Crow laws (which were not widespread but confined to a few states), women have been discriminated against in other comparable ways.
The rest of your post was incredibly rude and unnecessary. Please DO NOT put such words in my mouth ever again. This isn't a pissing contest. I'm not saying that black men have had no problems or that civil rights aren't worth fighting for. I'm just saying that Obama seems to be better-respected than Clinton because sexism runs deeper than racism in our culture.
Of course this is not a pissing contest. As a lady I refuse to enter such contest:) I do not recall saying this is a pissing contest.I did not put any such words in your mouth. Did you hear me say Yekhefah said?
As far as black voting, men was confronted with violences. Not mere words, "sticks and bricks will break my bones but word will never hurt".
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_events_smith.html
http://www.history.rochester.edu/class/douglass/part5.html
Black men voting was not a simple as 123. They where confronted with violences. Women on the other was confronted with words. Which at that time was pretty lethal. But it did not hurt as much as a blow to the head. So really the blacks was not allow to vote until the 1960's. Since people will use violence on the ones that tried!
My post was not rude, it was the truth. Which Alot american refuse to see and look the other way! You can not sit and say sexism is worst than racism. Because both is bad. Both gives reason to hate. Since when has any form of hate been better than one. As far as clinton gose in office. She has built a reputation. Just like Obama built a reputation.
Yekhefah the things that happen in this country speaks for itself! If we allow hate to be practice in any form. It hinders us all! Instead of battling the two hate forms. People should focus on eliminating them both! My post only stated the truth. Which it seems nobody wants to here until it affect them!
As far as the Jim crow laws, racism gose back future than that! I am aware of women rights. How women and treatment issues gose back future than that also! Look at the issues we have in third world countries. Concerning women and thier rights.
Like I stated earlier, Racism and sexism, you can compare the two. Because since when has one form of hate been better than the other! My coments and statements are history. They are the truth. They are not statements use to give people bad names. Or lead them into false beliefs. The US History is very bloody and all I did was speak it!
Yekhefah
01-27-2008, 05:33 PM
I did not say that sexism was worse than racism. I said it's more pervasive, and it is. Most people are not racist, and they don't THINK they're sexist but they still don't like an aggressive woman. If you don't understand the definition of "pervasive," then please look it up before you call me a racist or suggest that I think race violence is no big deal.
leilanicandy
01-27-2008, 05:48 PM
I did not say that sexism was worse than racism. I said it's more pervasive, and it is. Most people are not racist, and they don't THINK they're sexist but they still don't like an aggressive woman. If you don't understand the definition of "pervasive," then please look it up before you call me a racist or suggest that I think race violence is no big deal.
I did not call you a racist. Yet I do agree with your statement. "they dont think they are sexist but still do not like aggressive women".
Yekhefah
01-27-2008, 05:52 PM
Yeah. Sorry if I read you wrong, but it did sound like you were suggesting that I didn't think race violence was any big deal. It's not that sexism is worse than racism or that racism isn't worth worrying about; there's no competition. But most people who would never dream of active discrimination just get really irritated when a woman like Hillary takes an aggressive stance. They call her a bitch and a harpy and insist that it's not because of her gender, but it is. She's not acting like a woman "should." Obama, OTOH, as a man is perfectly entitled to speak out and even those who don't like him attack his policies and not him personally.
britt244
01-27-2008, 07:09 PM
Just overall. That's how it seems to me. Then again, I do tend to listen to conservative talk radio and read conservative media, and they REALLY hate Hillary so that may color my perspective. But I haven't heard any personal aspersion against Obama, which can't be said of Clinton. I hear people saying that Obama lacks experience or is underqualified, but Clinton is referred to as a conniving bitch or a manipulative harpy or any other sexist epithet. Because sexism is so pervasive, people pay a lot more attention to her gender and deal with her on that level, rather than arguing her points as a politician.
Not that I'd vote for either of them, mind. But I haven't seen Obama personally disrespected to anywhere near the degree that Clinton is.
i think a big part of this is BECAUSE he's black. people may tread more lightly and not want to be called out as making racist remarks.
Yekhefah
01-27-2008, 07:12 PM
I hadn't considered that, but it's certainly possible. You might be right.
Miss_Luscious
01-28-2008, 10:45 AM
My question is why the hell does Obama have to be black? His mom is white! Why is his default race black when he is actually half and half? I bet you if he looked more white than black he would have no problem winning the presidency.
I've wondered the same things about myself because I'm not all black yet I've always called myself and been refered to as black. What's wrong with being mixed? Why do we have to pick a race in 2008? Whenever I have to put my race for a job application or something like that I just pick whatever race I feel like that day because I'm not one race and I refuse to be put in a fucking box. Most people in this country are not one race. Even those white supremesists probably have a little bit of "niggra" in them and that's hilarious to me.
But back to the point - I think Obama has a very good chance of winning because even though he won a majority of the black vote, he also won in a majority white state too. I just wish people would stop implying that black people only vote for Obama because he's black. This seems to insinuate that black are too stupid to base thier opinion on aything but the color of the person's skin. How about they are voting for him because they feel that his ideologies match theirs the best? That's why I'm voting for him. If Hillary Clinton had Obamas views I would vote for her.
britt244
01-28-2008, 01:38 PM
^ but some people WILL vote just based on his race. it sucks, but it will happen.
Melonie
01-28-2008, 04:00 PM
^^^ well it HAS happened. 82% of black male SC voters cast their vote for Obama ... which wasn't terribly surprising. However, 80% of black female SC voters also cast their vote for Obama as well ... which WAS surprising given that they had the option of voting for a female.
The Clinton Inc. speculators are saying that this proves that Obama is the 'black' candidate, and also proves that black SC voters ( and by deduction black voters in other states) will heavily support Obama simply based on his skin color.
The same Clinton Inc. speculators are now apparently working the angle that this confirmation of a 'racist' vote on the part of black voters in SC removes future potential for racist accusations should a similarly 'racist' vote take place on the part of white voters in other states that favors Hilary.
The 'tin foil hat' crowd is now going one step beyond this, speculating that this confirmation of overwhelming racist based support for Obama by black voters now opens the door for Hilary to play her 'trump' racist card ... toward hispanic voters. Speculation is that Hilary now has little to lose and everything to gain by spending a lot of time in southwestern / western states instead of southern states, as well as little to lose and everything to gain by proposing relaxation of border security, institution of a 'temporary worker' program, and possible amnesty for Mexican illegal aliens. Many hispanic voters support such programs ... however most black voters universally hate them, since they will arguably worsen levels of unemployment and low wage job possibilities for unskilled young black Americans, as well as potentially threaten the status of blacks as the #1 per-capita recipients of federal tax funded subsidy programs in the future.
The argument goes that since black voters have now demonstrated in which direction their votes are going to go, Hilary need no longer fear 'pissing off' black voters in other states whose primaries have yet to be held by making overtures to hispanic voters i.e. 'dangling carrots' that address hispanic American issues but which are potentially negative for black Americans. With the hispanic voter numbers being nearly three times the black voter numbers, all Bill and Hilary now need to do is to swing about one in 3 extra hispanic primary votes toward Hilary and it won't matter a bit if 100% of black voters support Obama he will still lose.
kikidejavu
01-28-2008, 04:32 PM
melonie you totally forgot about our convo from yesterday :(
Deogol
01-28-2008, 05:08 PM
:laughing: I know, I'm a conservative Jewish stripper!
I'm conservative in the original libertarian sense though, small government and low taxes and the government staying the hell out of my life. I'm very nearly as disgusted with the Republicans and their liberal tax-and-spend policy as with the Democrats and theirs. I'm a conservative because I like my money and I want to keep it, and I like being a stripper and I want to keep the freedom to be one!
The true definition of a conservative!
Not the bullshit the Republican party is trying to sell these days.
By this definition, there are actually DEMOCRATIC conservatives!
Deogol
01-28-2008, 05:08 PM
yekhefah, you're a conservative dancer? that's definitely not the conservative stereotype lol
Ah.
Lemma ah...
introduce you to Melonie. ;D
jester214
01-28-2008, 05:10 PM
I don't think I follow you. Black men were awarded the right to vote under the 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870, a full half-century before a similar amendment was passed for women. I'm aware that intimidation hindered full suffrage, but that was the same for women too. As for Jim Crow laws (which were not widespread but confined to a few states), women have been discriminated against in other comparable ways.
The rest of your post was incredibly rude and unnecessary. Please DO NOT put such words in my mouth ever again. This isn't a pissing contest. I'm not saying that black men have had no problems or that civil rights aren't worth fighting for. I'm just saying that Obama seems to be better-respected than Clinton because sexism runs deeper than racism in our culture.
The intimidation for Women does not compare to the intimidation for African Americans with regards to voting. Women were voting reguarly in multiple states before the 19th amendment, and once the 19th amendment was passed, women faced almost not trouble voting.
African Americans as a whole were beaten, shot, killed, taxed, and threatened to keep them from voting this also went on for about 90 years after they were "awarded" the right.
A few states? Try atleast 20 that had laws down on the books. Close to half of our current number of states. Those are the ones that actually had the them down as "law" in other places they were simple enforced.
sexism runs deeper than racism? Really? I guess thats why we fault a war over women...
Deogol
01-28-2008, 05:12 PM
What I love about this election?
Political correctness has shown how screwy it is by making anyone involved (voter or candidate) either a racist, a sexist, or both!
It's fuckin awesome man!
It's a horrible catch 22 for liberals! Hmmm what shall I be, racist? Or sexist? Hmmmmm....
leilanicandy
01-28-2008, 05:41 PM
The argument goes that since black voters have now demonstrated in which direction their votes are going to go, Hilary need no longer fear 'pissing off' black voters in other states whose primaries have yet to be held by making overtures to hispanic voters i.e. 'dangling carrots' that address hispanic American issues but which are potentially negative for black Americans. With the hispanic voter numbers being nearly three times the black voter numbers, all Bill and Hilary now need to do is to swing about one in 3 extra hispanic primary votes toward Hilary and it won't matter a bit if 100% of black voters support Obama he will still lose.
Well I dont know if we have more legal hispanic here in America. Given the promblems and issues, I hear in Chicago and other places around the USA. But if we do, I say more power to them! I feel hispanic are starting to get the treatment. That black recieve in the 60's. You should see what they do to the hispanic community in Chicago. But If I am not mistaking, the activist in the hispanic community. Firmly support Obama, because they believe in him!
Now mel, it seems that you are saying that the new growth in the hispanic community. Is the new black.
sixelayvi
01-28-2008, 06:06 PM
this is such a good thread, Thank you!
Its a shame that in 2008 that race is still a problem in this society. i believe that people should be proud of who they are ( i think the term white pride has been bastardized by ignorant people, like the religion of Islam by terrorists). Like one of the previous posts before, i am worried that if Obama is elected president, something bad will happen A la JFK and MLK Jr.
*race is a social construct (we are all homo sapiens but with different adaptations to our environment)*
Yekhefah
01-28-2008, 06:29 PM
Jester, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
jester214
01-28-2008, 07:05 PM
Jester, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Agreed.
Let's ALL just be careful not to minimalize anybody's struggle to vote.
jester214
01-28-2008, 07:07 PM
What I love about this election?
Political correctness has shown how screwy it is by making anyone involved (voter or candidate) either a racist, a sexist, or both!
It's fuckin awesome man!
It's a horrible catch 22 for liberals! Hmmm what shall I be, racist? Or sexist? Hmmmmm....
So true! Another problem with American politics, to much emphasis on voting for the person.
Yekhefah
01-28-2008, 07:23 PM
*sigh* As I said repeatedly, I wasn't minimizing anything. Sheesh.
jester214
01-28-2008, 07:24 PM
*sigh* As I said repeatedly, I wasn't minimizing anything. Sheesh.
That kinda pisses me off, I wasn't singling you out. I said ALL which includes myself, going over my own post I thought I was kinda minimizing.
Melonie
01-28-2008, 10:12 PM
yekhefah, you're a conservative dancer? that's definitely not the conservative stereotype lol
Ah. Lemma ah...
introduce you to Melonie.
Well I suppose that I am a FISCAL conservative. i definitely don't like to see huge sums of money being 'pissed away' without actually accomplishing a worthwhile objective ... and particularly so when a large chunk of the money being 'pissed away' without accomplishing its intended purpose came from my own IRS check !!!
I'm definitely a libertarian on social issues. Basically, I don't give a
[email protected]!t what you want to do as long as nobody else is being hurt by what you're doing. But on the flip side I don't like being told by someone else what I can or can't do as long as nobody else is being hurt. But I definitely don't want to hear that, after you have freely chosen to do something that hasn't worked out as well as you thought it would, you want ME to help bail you out !
IMHO freedom and responsibility must go hand in hand. I don't believe that fits a conservative definition ... or republican, or democrat, or liberal for that matter !
Now mel, it seems that you are saying that the new growth in the hispanic community. Is the new black.
The only thing that I am saying is that hispanic Americans now outnumber black Americans by a 3 to 1 margin - and that's only counting (supposedly) legal residents LOL.
What I posted was something that political pundits are saying ... that the overwhelming support for Barack by black American voters in SC along clearly racial lines (a phenomenon which is projected to also apply to other states) has opened the door for Hilary to play yet another race card in her campaign. Hilary's new race card involving hispanics has the potential to 'trump' Obama's race card involving blacks ... because A. hispanic American voters significantly outnumber black American voters, and because B. until now no democratic candidate has had the 'balls' to solidly get behind issues of particular interest to hispanic voters (like work permits for Mexican citizens, like diversion of federal aid money now going to big northern cities towards border states / cities) for fear of 'pissing off' black voters who would be worse off if such proposals were to actually happen. However, now that black SC voters have demonstrated that they are going to monolithically support Barack Obama (with the implication that black voters in other states are likely to do the same), it doesn't matter if Hilary now 'pisses off' black voters in order to secure more hispanic votes since black voters didn't deliver s#!t in the way of votes for Hilary in SC and aren't likely to deliver
[email protected]!t in the way of votes for Hilary in other states either as long as Obama is on the ballot.
In the longer term, if black voters do monolithically support Barack, and if Barack does NOT win the democratic nomination, then president Hilary will follow through on her campaign promises to hispanics, probably causing black unemployment to rise, probably causing pay rates for menial jobs (with a disproportionate share of black Americans working at menial jobs) to fall or at least to not increase, probably causing a cutback in block grants to big northern cities (with a disproportionate share of black residents) reducing levels of available social welfare benefits etc. In other words, by black voters putting 'all of their eggs' in Obama's basket, if Obama does not become president black Americans will very likely be worse off than before, since for the first time in the past 50+ years neither president Hilary nor a republican president will 'owe' anything at all to black voters.
Such is the nature of back room politics I guess. However, after Hilary plays the hispanic race card, if the monolithic support for Barack by black voters doesn't result in Obama becoming president, black Americans arguably risk permanantly losing their 'most favored minority' status to hispanic Americans - something which could have profound consequences in terms of the creation / continuation of gov't programs targeted to 'help' black Americans. This was what the local SC democratic politician was warning black voters about when she tried to remind them that Hilary is the only viable candidate who would be able to continue 'feeding the sheep' (her choice of phrase, not mine).
~
Miss_Luscious
01-29-2008, 06:53 AM
Melonie, you are still saying that the only reason blacks voted for Obama is because he's black. How can you know the motivations of every black voter? Maybe they voted for him because they feel he is the best candiddate. Why is it OK for people to assume that black people will blindly follow the black candidate? If Al Sharpton ran for president again he would not get my vote of the votes of others who would be considered black.
I wish people would stop reducing black's political intelligence to "follow the black guy"! Black people are smarter than that!
britt244
01-29-2008, 10:10 AM
^ i think it comes down to the ignorance of EVERYONE, not black people. i think a black person who would vote based on the fact that someone is black isn't too smart, but i also think a white person who would NOT vote just because someone is black is pretty stupid too.
Melonie
01-29-2008, 10:17 AM
^^^ please note that I'm not the one drawing that conclusion ... it is the political analysts and pollsters! Speaking of which ...
(snip)"LOS ANGELES -- Sen. Hillary Clinton is relying on the big Latino vote as her firewall to prevent her losing the Feb. 5 primary in California, the most important of 22 states contested on the Democratic side on Mega Tuesday. But that reliance, both pro-Clinton and anti-Clinton Democrats say, is fraught with peril for the Democratic Party coalition because it threatens to alienate its essential African American component.
Clinton's double-digit lead in California polls over Sen. Barack Obama is misleading. Subtract a Latino voting bloc whose dependability to show up on Election Day always has been shaky, and Clinton is no better than even here, with Obama gaining. To encourage this firewall, the Clinton campaign may be drifting into encouragement of Hispanic vs. black racial conflict by condoning Latino hostility toward the first African American with a chance to become president.
The implications transcend California. The pugnacious campaign strategy of Bill and Hillary Clinton in forcefully identifying Obama as the black candidate spreads concern that they could be putting at risk continued massive, unconditional support for Democrats by African Americans. The long-range situation is so disturbing that some Clinton supporters talk about an outcome they rejected not long ago: a Clinton-Obama ticket.
Exit polls of Obama's unexpected landslide victory over Hillary Clinton in Saturday's South Carolina primary reflected disgust among both white and black voters with the Clintons playing the race card. It should signal caution for them in California, where the Latino vote adds another component to the lethal racial equation.
Experienced California Democratic politicians doubt the validity of Clinton's lead. At the heart of Obama's support are upper-income Democrats (in exceptional supply here) and young voters whose actions are difficult to predict. Will the state's huge, passive college campuses erupt in an outpouring of Obama voters?"(snip)
(snip)"The poll's demographics are more important. Clinton has dramatically lost support among blacks, now trailing Obama 58 percent to 24 percent. It is a virtual dead heat among white non-Hispanics, 32 percent to 30 percent. The 12-point overall lead derives from a 59 percent to 19 percent Clinton edge among Latinos.
In California, the Latino vote is notoriously undependable in actual voting, especially when compared with African American turnout. How the Clinton campaign deals with Hispanic voters is a sensitive matter, and sensitivity has never been a hallmark of the Clinton style.
Insensitivity was reflected in a recent issue of the New Yorker, when Clinton's veteran Latino political operative Sergio Bendixen was quoted as saying, "The Hispanic voter -- and I want to say this very carefully -- has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates."
That brief quote from an obscure politician has generated shock and awe in Democratic circles. It comes close to validating the concern that the Clinton campaign is not only relying on a brown firewall built on an anti-black base but is reinforcing it. "(snip)
Also, the political pundits are speculating today that this development is the true reason that Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry etc. have come out with public endorsements of Obama. Their states like Massachusetts have relatively high percentages of black voters versus hispanic voters compared to southwestern and western states, thus a choice to publicly support Hilary over Barack could jeopardize their own chances for future re-election to congress by costing them future black votes in their home states without the existance of a big hispanic voter block in their home state to make up the difference. On the other hand, by endorsing Obama, they remain in the good graces of their home state black voters, as well as avoiding potential future claims of 'selling out' their black constituents. As I said earlier, back room politics is what it is !
I wish people would stop reducing black's political intelligence to "follow the black guy"! Black people are smarter than that!
One would certainly like to think so. However, past election results for all sorts of elective offices all across the country tend to indicate that if there is a black candidate on the ballot that black voters will overwhelmingly support that candidate, as did the results of the SC primary. However, as the Clinton's hispanic 'advisor' points out as quoted in the linked article, past election results for all sorts of elective offices all across the country tend to indicate that if there is a black candidate on the ballot that hispanic voters will support that candidate's opponent ! There is simply WAY too much historical election and polling data out there to deny that racial voting patterns exist with black and hispanic voters, as opposed to independent decisions being made by individual voters with any resulting racial voting pattern being a matter of 'pure coincidence'.
~
Miss_Luscious
01-29-2008, 12:52 PM
Yes but Mel you are still assuming that the only reason a majority of black people vote for black candidates is because they are black and I simply don't think that's true. Do women vote for women just because they are women? Do white guys vote for white guys juut because they are white guys?Then how come people think blacks will vote for blacks just because they are black? It probably has more to do with feeling like they have their best interests at heart. I mean, if there was a black republican candidate do you think most blacks would vote for them? I don't. I believe in Obama's case they are voting for the best democatic candidate and he just so happens to be "black".
Eric Stoner
01-29-2008, 02:21 PM
Yes but Mel you are still assuming that the only reason a majority of black people vote for black candidates is because they are black and I simply don't think that's true. Do women vote for women just because they are women? Do white guys vote for white guys juut because they are white guys?Then how come people think blacks will vote for blacks just because they are black? It probably has more to do with feeling like they have their best interests at heart. I mean, if there was a black republican candidate do you think most blacks would vote for them? I don't. I believe in Obama's case they are voting for the best democatic candidate and he just so happens to be "black".
Huh ? Do women vote for women just because they are women ? In Hillary's case they sure did especially in New Hampshire.
Some whites vote for a white for no other reason. Some blacks will vote for Obama for no reason other than his race.
We don't live in an ideal world where all that matters are qualifications and issues. Twer it only true. The Clintons are certainly aware of ethnic bloc voting.
She'll take all the closet racists and patronizing white folk she can get.
Melonie
01-29-2008, 04:13 PM
Mel you are still assuming that the only reason a majority of black people vote for black candidates is because they are black and I simply don't think that's true. Do women vote for women just because they are women?
again, I (as in me personally) am not assuming anything whatsoever as to the reasons that different voters vote the way they do. What I am doing is reporting to you that past election results and exit polling data clearly show that 'electable' black candidates typically receive overwhelmingly strong support from black voters, from Barack Obama to Harold Ford to Ray Nagin. Eric is also correct that 'electible' female candidates typically receive disproportionately strong support from women voters, from Hilary to Nancy Pelosi to Kathleen Sibelius - although the strong support that female candidates have typically received from women voters do not approach the monolithic levels of support that black candidates have typically received from black voters.
Ironically, the pundits are claiming that the one exit poll statistic that reportedly pushed Hilary to reach for the hispanic 'trump' race card was the fact that in the SC primary, black women voted for Obama in almost the same monolithic high numbers as black men. The actual stats were Obama = 82% of black male votes, and Obama = 80% of female black votes. This statistic confirmed that, when presented with the choice of a female candidate versus a black candidate (which is essentially a first time electoral 'test' of a black male candidate versus a white female candidate with both being considered 'electible'), black SC women voters apparently felt that blackness was more important than femaleness. Of course your point may also be correct that every one of SC's black voters fully evaluated candidates' qualifications without regard to race or gender ... but with Hilary's record (or lack thereof) and with Barack's record (or even greater lack thereof) that's a pretty tall order.
We don't live in an ideal world where all that matters are qualifications and issues. Twer it only true.
very probably the case, unfortunately. However, there is one good thing that has already come out of Barack being included in this year's short list of seriously 'electible' candidates for president. That is the fact that issues like the ones being discussed here re race / gender based voting patterns, motivations for black / hispanic to cast (or not cast) their votes in certain ways etc. are finally being semi-openly discussed in national media by national political analysts and commentators. In every prior election, the mere mention of race / gender based voting patterns would have been smothered by political correctness.
Melonie
01-29-2008, 04:36 PM
Also, the same beginnings of open discussion in regard to mainstream discussions of racial / gender based voting patterns have also allowed a few 'insiders' to start talking about why the Clinton's pitting of black voters against hispanic voters will become an EXTREMELY important issue. The basic reason is that the next presidential election in 2012, as well as future congressional elections beyond 2010, will be based on new US census numbers. Data derived from states clearly indicates that states / cities with the largest percentage of black voters will be losing population thus losing electoral votes / congressional seats. This refers to states like MI, OH, MA, NY, NJ, etc. The growing percentage of black voters in these states is to some degree the result of black birth rates, but to a greater degree the result of white middle class former residents of these states packing up and moving to different states due to job loss, high state taxes etc.
In comparison, the same data clearly shows that states that already have a high percentage of hispanic residents will experience both a rapid growth in hispanic percentage as well as overall population growth. As before, the reasons are partly due to very high hispanic birth rates (relatively speaking), but also due in some degree to former white middle class residents of high tax northern states moving into these southern and western states in search of lower taxes, lower cost of living, better job opportunities etc. As a result these states will gain electoral votes, as well as gain congressional seats.
What this basically means from the standpoint of future elections is that, after new 2010 census figures begin to be used to 'weight' elections instead of 2000 census figures, even if black and hispanic voting patterns don't change one bit, hispanic voters will wind up with more presidential electoral vote clout and more congressional seat clout in the house of representatives than they presently have, while black voters will wind up with less.
When combined with the historical record of black voters overwhelmingly supporting democratic candidates with 90%+ majorities, versus a historical record of hispanic voters being willing to cross between casting votes for democrats versus casting votes for republicans, the unavoidable consequences of the 2010 census and subsequent reapportionment of electoral votes and congressional seats represent a major risk factor for the national democratic party.
The Clintons have figured out that black voters and hispanic voters have far more differences than they have similarities, such that it is now really a practical impossibility to cater to both black voters and hispanic voters during a period of a difficult / declining economy - where discussion of issues such as immigration / guest worker programs / targeted social welfare benefit program costs etc. can no longer be swept under the rug. The Clintons (more likely their Machiavellian advisors) have read the exit polls and the demographic studies, and the Clintons are positioning themselves to reap present but more importantly future benefits by choosing to cater to hispanic voters instead of black voters at the national level. The same Machiavellian advisors are pointing out to Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and other national politicians who now openly support Obama, and 'coincidentally' whose home state constituencies consist of a high percentage of black voters, that their support of Obama and black voters may be taking place at the price of losing the support of hispanic voters ... who in turn could choose to support republican candidates in the 2008 and particularly 2012 presidential election, potentially leading to a republican victory.
PS all of this back room politics stuff that is now beginning to come out in the media for the first time is really starting to give me a huge headache ! However, it is becoming increasingly clear that, with such monolithic actual or 'perceived' black voter support for Barack Obama, if Barack does not become the next president of the United States black voters will be worse off with either a Hilary or a republican in the White House for the next four years. Basically, under either a Hilary or a republican presidency, the only remaining segment of national gov't where black voters will retain their present levels of politician support will be the US Senate (because senate seats are 2 per state irregardless of state population levels) - which is not enough to sway gov't policy in a pro-black direction versus a pro-hispanic president and a pro-hispanic house of representatives.
~
VegasPrincess
01-30-2008, 12:37 PM
"white pride" is a term commonly used by racists, Katrine is right...think about it, it makes no sense. White is a color, not an "ethnicity" (like I'm Italian, I have Italian pride, my family is from Italy. Nobody's family is from a skin color, lol), and is something that racists pride themselves on being. It's weird.
Black pride makes a lot more sense, because black people are of African descent, and have pride in their culture and heritage. They are not just proud of their skin color....
Deogol
01-30-2008, 03:48 PM
"white pride" is a term commonly used by racists, Katrine is right...think about it, it makes no sense. White is a color, not an "ethnicity" (like I'm Italian, I have Italian pride, my family is from Italy. Nobody's family is from a skin color, lol), and is something that racists pride themselves on being. It's weird.
Black pride makes a lot more sense, because black people are of African descent, and have pride in their culture and heritage. They are not just proud of their skin color....
That has to be the funniest post I have read on the whole thread!
Melonie
01-30-2008, 04:11 PM
^^^ that very subject has already been the source of controversy re Obama not being considered to be 'black enough' by Rev. Al, Rev. Jesse, Rev. Louis etc. Apparently black is not an 'ethnicity' either, with black American descendants of former slaves considering themselves to be very different (culturally speaking) from other black Americans like Barack who descend from comparatively recent immigrants.
(snip)"Is Obama Black Enough?
By TA-NEHISI PAUL COATES
For all the predictable outrage Joe Biden's recent comments about Barack Obama elicited, the gaffe put a spotlight on one of the more unfortunate forces fueling Obamania. Ever since Barack Obama first ascended the national stage at the 2004 Democratic convention, pundits have been tripping over themselves to point out the difference between him and the average Joe from the South Side. Obama is biracial, and has a direct connection with Africa. He is articulate, young and handsome. He does not feel the need to yell "Reparations now!" into any available microphone.
But this is a double-edged sword. As much as his biracial identity has helped Obama build a sizable following in middle America, it's also opened a gap for others to question his authenticity as a black man. In calling Obama the "first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," the implication was that the black people who are regularly seen by whites — or at least those who aspire to the highest office in the land — are none of these things. But give Biden credit — at least he acknowledged Obama's identity.
The same can't be said for others. "Obama's mother is of white U.S. stock. His father is a black Kenyan," Stanley Crouch recently sniffed in a New York Daily News column entitled "What Obama Isn't: Black Like Me." "Black, in our political and social vocabulary, means those descended from West African slaves," wrote Debra Dickerson on the liberal website Salon. Writers like TIME and New Republic columnist Peter Beinart have argued that Obama is seen as a "good black," and thus has less of following among black people. Meanwhile, agitators like Al Sharpton are seen as the authentic "bad blacks." Obama's trouble, asserted Beinart, is that he will have to prove his loyalty to The People in a way that "bad blacks" never have to. Obama, for his part, settled this debate some time ago. "If I'm outside your building trying to catch a cab," he told Charlie Rose, "they're not saying, 'Oh, there's a mixed race guy.'" Obama understands what all blacks, including myself, know all too well — that Amadou Diallo's foreign ancestry could not prevent his wallet from morphing into a gun in the eyes of the police.
For years pundits excoriated young black kids for attacking other smart successful black kids by questioning their blackness. But this is suddenly permissible for presidential candidates. Beinart's good black/bad black dynamic is the sort of armchair logic that comes from not spending much time around actual black people. As the New Republic points out, Sharpton has an overstated following among black people. In 2004, when Sharpton ran for President, his traction among his alleged base was underwhelming. In South Carolina, where almost half of all registered Dems were black, both John Kerry and John Edwards received twice as many black votes as Sharpton. But this hasn't stopped media outlets from phoning Sharpton whenever something even remotely racial goes down. And it hasn't stopped writers from touting Sharpton's presumed popularity among black people, as opposed to "palatable" black people like Obama. "(snip)
However, in the absence of a black presidential candidate descended from the American slave 'ethnicity', primary election polling has shown that black voters are willing to monolithically support Barack Obama. Thus it would appear that being a 'good black' (the author's choice of words not mine) is indeed 'black enough' (again the author's choice of words not mine) to convince black voters.
~