33125
Post by: Seaward
I'm referring to the poll mentioned in this editorial. 94% of African-Americans intend to vote for Obama, 0% intend to vote for Romney.
If 94% of white folks planned to vote for a white guy running against a black candidate - and, moreover, exactly none planned to vote for the black dude - would that not be considered a fairly clear sign of racism?
29110
Post by: AustonT
Can't possibly be true. He'll probably end up with about as much as McCain so 4%? It would be racist if the Democrat was white and the Republican was black and the black vote suddenly went against it's historical record. As it stands it's just unsurprising not racist.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Black people not voting for the guy whose party is trying to make it harder for black people to vote and implies that they are all on welfare?
Clearly racist.
But welcome to the "if we made a white people club we are racist, but the NAACP is okay?" club.
25603
Post by: Melchiour
A few points.
1. The poll was only 100 African Americans as per the article. That is a tiny sampling size for a survey.
2. Most polls have a 4-5% give.
3. Most African Americans are Democrats, it would seem likely Democrats vote for Democrats.
4. Bush only got 11% against a white opponent.
Conclusion, not as racist as it may seem.
29110
Post by: AustonT
 d-usa wrote:
But welcome to the "if we made a white people club we are racist, but the NAACP is okay?" club.
Obviously you don't think so but this is and always has been a good point.
37231
Post by: d-usa
It never has been, the people making that point also claim that white power and black power mean the same thing.
241
Post by: Ahtman
 Seaward wrote:I'm referring to the poll mentioned in this editorial. 94% of African-Americans intend to vote for Obama, 0% intend to vote for Romney.
If 94% of white folks planned to vote for a white guy running against a black candidate - and, moreover, exactly none planned to vote for the black dude - would that not be considered a fairly clear sign of racism?
It depends, are we only going to consider those two numbers in a vacuum, or look at them in the greater cultural context? The problem cuts both ways as well, as one could just as easily ask if it is Republican racism that pushes African Americans away from the candidate. I would say the racism would be more likely in saying things like "Black people only vote for Barrack Obama because he is black".
For some reason this makes me think of when people complain about BET existing, or Black History Month.
29110
Post by: AustonT
d-usa wrote:It never has been, the people making that point also claim that white power and black power mean the same thing.
Tell me about how race based ideology isnt racist.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Racism: 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.
If a group that is the target of racism gets together and creates a race based group to combat racism aimed at that group, that is not racism.
241
Post by: Ahtman
 AustonT wrote: d-usa wrote:It never has been, the people making that point also claim that white power and black power mean the same thing.
Tell me about how race based ideology isnt racist.
Well, because racism isn't about pretending there is no such thing as race. One can recognize a shared history within a group with certain similiar factors without it meaning that they believe that one race is inherently better than another, or even better at all. White Power is about white supremacy whereas Black Power is about self-esteem and pride. White people weren't told consistently for centuries they were, at best, second class citizens with little to no access to decent education or government infrastructure. The very idea that they could look in the mirror and say "Black is beautiful" or "I'm black and I'm proud" was so radical even to the community that it still reverberates today. It is also such a radical concept to white people that they often have trouble understanding it, so they think it is racism because they think if you pretend there is no such thing as ethnicity that will solve any race issues.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Racism involves superiority and discrimination. You can join the NAACP if you want to and they will not prevent you from joining.
221
Post by: Frazzled
d-usa wrote:It never has been, the people making that point also claim that white power and black power mean the same thing.
I must say I never checked to see what color it was, just how awesome it was when I stuck a fork in the socket. PZAP! PPow!
37231
Post by: d-usa
 Frazzled wrote: d-usa wrote:It never has been, the people making that point also claim that white power and black power mean the same thing.
I must say I never checked to see what color it was, just how awesome it was when I stuck a fork in the socket. PZAP! PPow!
AC power, Tesla for life!
221
Post by: Frazzled
d-usa wrote: Frazzled wrote: d-usa wrote:It never has been, the people making that point also claim that white power and black power mean the same thing.
I must say I never checked to see what color it was, just how awesome it was when I stuck a fork in the socket. PZAP! PPow!
AC power, Tesla for life!
Nicholas "MORE POWER!" Tesla, a man's man.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
African Americans have historically gone Democrat for the last 60 or so years. Harry Truman + Lyndon Johnson + Barry Goldwater are the likely reasons the Democrats have such a strong foundation in the African American community. IIRC correctly, Lyndon Johnson received 95+% of the African American vote as well. It's waxed and waned--but I'm not sure that any GOP Presidential nominee has received more than 10-15% since then.
29110
Post by: AustonT
d-usa wrote:Racism involves superiority and discrimination. You can join the NAACP if you want to and they will not prevent you from joining.
Racism involves separating people into races by assuming shared characteristics of those races. Racism is essential to racial discrimination but it is not the same thing. Black power doesn't have the same meaning as white power but both are racial terms. BTW I didn't mention or equate black and white power, you did, which is a straw man. It's convenient for you to argue against but has nothing to do with me. All that I argued was that groups formed for the advancement of racial groups are equally racist as they choose to separate people based on race.
I will however concede that the organizations formed for white people are invariably supremacist and those for blacks and Latinos have a much better chance to be non-discriminatory civil rights groups.
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
What about the staggering increase In the overall black vote, though?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Whew. Read the thread twice. Almost though for moment if I didn't vote for Obama I'm a racist.
34390
Post by: whembly
Sure it's racism... just not the "bad one".
963
Post by: Mannahnin
 Ahtman wrote: AustonT wrote: d-usa wrote:It never has been, the people making that point also claim that white power and black power mean the same thing.
Tell me about how race based ideology isnt racist.
Well, because racism isn't about pretending there is no such thing as race. One can recognize a shared history within a group with certain similiar factors without it meaning that they believe that one race is inherently better than another, or even better at all. White Power is about white supremacy whereas Black Power is about self-esteem and pride. White people weren't told consistently for centuries they were, at best, second class citizens with little to no access to decent education or government infrastructure. The very idea that they could look in the mirror and say "Black is beautiful" or "I'm black and I'm proud" was so radical even to the community that it still reverberates today. It is also such a radical concept to white people that they often have trouble understanding it, so they think it is racism because they think if you pretend there is no such thing as ethnicity that will solve any race issues.
This. We had literally hundreds of years of whites preaching and teaching (in the pulpits, the congress, and the classrooms) that black people were naturally inferior, that it was ordained by god and proven with (pseudo, BS) science. Just being able to say "black and beautiful" or "black and proud" were statements of claiming an identity that wasn't "less than" inherently.
Judgments about racism have to be made in context. For the voters in this little survey, part of that context is one in which the Republican party in general, starting in the late 1960s, consciously dumped the minority vote to win the support of racist Southern voters who had traditionally been Democrats, and abandoned the party to switch Republican, mostly over race and civil rights issues. As others mentioned before, the parties basically traded places on the issue of civil rights.
Wiki wrote:The strategy was first adopted under future Republican President Richard Nixon and Republican Senator Barry Goldwater[6] in the late 1960s.[7] The strategy was successful in some regards. It contributed to the electoral realignment of Southern states to the Republican Party, but at the expense of losing more than 90 percent of black voters to the Democratic Party. As the twentieth century came to a close, the Republican Party began trying to appeal again to black voters, though with little success.[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
752
Post by: Polonius
As always, it's a bit more complicated.
Black people, as a race, at least in the US, have a pretty strongly similar ethnic and cultural heritage. Being a "black american" means sometimes: West African, protestant christian, legacy of slavery, deep, deep roots in the south, food, language, music, etc. It is a definition based on attributes.
White people, as a race in the US, has historically been the opposite: a definition of exclusion. It's light skinned people, to be sure, but it's expanded to include Jew, the Irish, southern and eastern europeans, Middle easterners, etc. To be "white" is not to come from a common background, or even race (even light skinned latinos or arabs dont' call themselves "white.") To be "white" is to be in the political center. It is, in most ways, to be without race.
To celebrate being "white" isn't a celebration of a culture. It's a celebration of a stranglehold on power.
Want to celebrate something? Celebrate what you do have. Ethnicity, religion, language. Nobody objects to "appalachian pride," and they're whiter than a fresh snowfall.
27987
Post by: Surtur
The NAACP exist to combat a perceived current disadvantage that the black minority have been pushed into from generations of racism after being liberated from slavery. Living in slums, lower wage jobs, low educational achievements are all great examples of how disadvantaged African Americans are even today. Economic hardships are tough to come out of when you have limited resources to begin with. It requires an extremely high level drive to put forward that much time and energy and sacrifice to get to a higher level.
34390
Post by: whembly
 Polonius wrote:
As always, it's a bit more complicated.
Black people, as a race, at least in the US, have a pretty strongly similar ethnic and cultural heritage. Being a "black american" means sometimes: West African, protestant christian, legacy of slavery, deep, deep roots in the south, food, language, music, etc. It is a definition based on attributes.
White people, as a race in the US, has historically been the opposite: a definition of exclusion. It's light skinned people, to be sure, but it's expanded to include Jew, the Irish, southern and eastern europeans, Middle easterners, etc. To be "white" is not to come from a common background, or even race (even light skinned latinos or arabs dont' call themselves "white.") To be "white" is to be in the political center. It is, in most ways, to be without race.
To celebrate being "white" isn't a celebration of a culture. It's a celebration of a stranglehold on power.
Want to celebrate something? Celebrate what you do have. Ethnicity, religion, language. Nobody objects to "appalachian pride," and they're whiter than a fresh snowfall.
I guess my sarcasm-o-meter is broke here... sorry  .
I agree with everything you say here...
Back to OP: No, I don't think it's racism as they vote Democrats anyway.
Now, the real test would be a white Democrat vs. a black Republican... now THAT would be interesting.
44290
Post by: LoneLictor
Romney and his crew are trying to make it harder for black people to vote. Its only natural that the black people who can vote will be voting against him.
752
Post by: Polonius
 whembly wrote: Polonius wrote:
As always, it's a bit more complicated.
Black people, as a race, at least in the US, have a pretty strongly similar ethnic and cultural heritage. Being a "black american" means sometimes: West African, protestant christian, legacy of slavery, deep, deep roots in the south, food, language, music, etc. It is a definition based on attributes.
White people, as a race in the US, has historically been the opposite: a definition of exclusion. It's light skinned people, to be sure, but it's expanded to include Jew, the Irish, southern and eastern europeans, Middle easterners, etc. To be "white" is not to come from a common background, or even race (even light skinned latinos or arabs dont' call themselves "white.") To be "white" is to be in the political center. It is, in most ways, to be without race.
To celebrate being "white" isn't a celebration of a culture. It's a celebration of a stranglehold on power.
Want to celebrate something? Celebrate what you do have. Ethnicity, religion, language. Nobody objects to "appalachian pride," and they're whiter than a fresh snowfall.
I guess my sarcasm-o-meter is broke here... sorry .
I agree with everything you say here...
Back to OP: No, I don't think it's racism as they vote Democrats anyway.
Now, the real test would be a white Democrat vs. a black Republican... now THAT would be interesting.
It's ok. Yours probably wasn't the best one to respond to.
As was hinted at earlier in the thread, the real question isn't how many black people vote for obama, but how many more vote for him than for previous democrats. And... I'm not sure I can really knock anybody for wanting Obama to win (or get reelected) just because of the history of him being black. It's a pretty strong statement for us to make as a country.
5470
Post by: sebster
Clinton got a roughly similar percentage of black voters. Participation increased considerably under Obama, but the percentage of votes going to the Democratic candidate was about the same.
While the Democrats regularly win 90 something percent of black voters, participation rates among black voters is about 55%, which is lower than most other ethnic groups.
As such, you can't really say black people overwhelmingly vote Democrat, as only about half of them do so.
What you can say is that almost no black people vote for the Republican party.
Turns out all that race baiting came with a price.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Explained largely by Obama's ability to combine discussion of poverty with evangelical overtones, something that would appeal to a population that is very religious and largely concerned with poverty.
Polonius wrote:White people, as a race in the US, has historically been the opposite: a definition of exclusion. It's light skinned people, to be sure, but it's expanded to include Jew, the Irish, southern and eastern europeans, Middle easterners, etc. To be "white" is not to come from a common background, or even race (even light skinned latinos or arabs dont' call themselves "white.") To be "white" is to be in the political center. It is, in most ways, to be without race.
It's worth noting that Irish people were considered a different ethnicity in the 19th century, and even into the 20th century. The idea only really disappeared when the nation more or less caught up with England. The criteria for being thought of as 'white' is basically being wealthy.
I'm not sure I agree with 'white' being the political centre, as much as I'd say it's about being among the most privileged.
Anyhow, that was an excellent post. Between your post there and Ahtman's above I think this issue has been pretty much smashed.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
 sebster wrote:
Explained largely by Obama's ability to combine discussion of poverty with evangelical overtones, something that would appeal to a population that is very religious and largely concerned with poverty.
I think that's an excellent point Sebster. Note that a majority of African American leadership has the preceding honorific Reverend. President Obama broke that mold (perhaps not the first--but certainly the first with that degree of success).
Ironically, a fellow Reverend caused him a great deal of angst during the primary---and talk about navigating a political landmine? If anyone still has doubts that Obama is a skilled politician with a savvy campaign staff--just go back and listen/watch how he handled the Reverend Wright scandal.
5470
Post by: sebster
 AgeOfEgos wrote:I think that's an excellent point Sebster. Note that a majority of African American leadership has the preceding honorific Reverend. President Obama broke that mold (perhaps not the first--but certainly the first with that degree of success).
It's also interesting because motivating religious people to get out and vote delivered the presidency in an upset to Carter. Reagan took on the lessons of that and won two terms, Bush Sr was never a publically religious man and it definitely cost him in 1992. It was then the cornestone Bush Jr's appeal and all that time the Democrats were failing to engage on that level.
Obama changed that, and while it didn't deliver much better numbers among white evangelicals, it did great things among black evangelicals. Whether Democrats continue to engage in religious concepts after this election will remain to be seen - that nonsense at the convention over whether God is mentioned or not means they'll probably feth it up, and somehow continue to concede the Christian vote to the party that is opposed to charity and social justice.
The other interesting thing to note is that Republicans are now running committees and exploratory groups into winning the votes of black people. While it's easy on the surface to make claims about racism, they know the real issue is that no black people are voting Republican. With racism on the decline the old race baiting tactics don't deliver the same results, and there's a demographic time bomb ticking on a party that holds a winning number only among older white men, and so the Republicans need to find some way to appeal to black voters.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
To my understanding the hispanic vote is an even bigger issue for them. They're trying to make inroads on the basis of some strong religious conservatism in those communities.
752
Post by: Polonius
 Mannahnin wrote:To my understanding the hispanic vote is an even bigger issue for them. They're trying to make inroads on the basis of some strong religious conservatism in those communities.
the problem there is the immigration rhetoric, and again the issues of poverty.
Still, socially conservative Catholics are increasingly republican, so that's a shift that's going to happen to some extent.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Maybe if Santorum were hispanic, the party would have backed him more. Not the regular R voters, of course, but perhaps the RNC.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Romney did say it would help if he was hispanic.
5534
Post by: dogma
AustonT wrote:Can't possibly be true. He'll probably end up with about as much as McCain so 4%? It would be racist if the Democrat was white and the Republican was black and the black vote suddenly went against it's historical record. As it stands it's just unsurprising not racist.
Why do we agree on so many things?
But yeah, Obama's race may play a role, but I suspect it has more to do with rallying a black voting bloc that always swings towards the Democrats than anything else.
The original question actually makes me wonder what would have happened if Herman Cain had taken the nomination. Automatically Appended Next Post: d-usa wrote:Racism involves superiority and discrimination. You can join the NAACP if you want to and they will not prevent you from joining.
They'll also give you scholarship money, even if you happen to be white.
752
Post by: Polonius
 dogma wrote:The original question actually makes me wonder what would have happened if Herman Cain had taken the nomination.
.
Almost nothing. There's an impolite term they would likely use to describe him.
5470
Post by: sebster
Mannahnin wrote:To my understanding the hispanic vote is an even bigger issue for them. They're trying to make inroads on the basis of some strong religious conservatism in those communities.
Definitely. As I understand it the latino vote has always been Democratic, but nowhere near as one sided as the black vote (the latino vote is about 65 35 IIRC). The issue there is that the trend is downward, and it is perhaps the key demographic in the next twenty years, given the way population is going.
The Republicans are trying to make in-roads into the latino vote, and are likely to have more success than with the black vote, but their approach, to me, seems doomed to failure. They appear to be going to these groups and asking them 'how can we explain our policies in a way that'll appeal to you?', instead of asking 'what policies can we adopt that would appeal to you?' Automatically Appended Next Post: Polonius wrote:the problem there is the immigration rhetoric, and again the issues of poverty.
Yeah, it's a fun fact to remember that in 2000 Muslims overwhelmingly voted for Bush, as they agreed with his socially conservative values.
Bush actually did pretty well at not playing the race card against Muslims, perhaps in part because he knew they were a solid Republican voting bloc but he couldn't stop others doing the same. In 2004 that voting bloc just collapsed, and it hasn't returned to the polls since then.
In terms of long term strategy, it basically sums up the big problem for the Republicans - that a lot of policies that work well in getting out their traditional voting bloc, like anti-immigration, and anti-welfare with strong components of race-baiting, hurt their standing among the growing demographic groups.
5534
Post by: dogma
Polonius wrote:
Almost nothing. There's an impolite term they would likely use to describe him.
Possibly, but I've heard that term used with regard to Obama as well.
Clearly Obama would still have captured the majority of the vote, but I wonder how many would have moved to Cain.
30287
Post by: Bromsy
Polonius wrote:
As always, it's a bit more complicated.
Black people, as a race, at least in the US, have a pretty strongly similar ethnic and cultural heritage. Being a "black american" means sometimes: West African, protestant christian, legacy of slavery, deep, deep roots in the south, food, language, music, etc. It is a definition based on attributes.
White people, as a race in the US, has historically been the opposite: a definition of exclusion. It's light skinned people, to be sure, but it's expanded to include Jew, the Irish, southern and eastern europeans, Middle easterners, etc. To be "white" is not to come from a common background, or even race (even light skinned latinos or arabs dont' call themselves "white.") To be "white" is to be in the political center. It is, in most ways, to be without race.
To celebrate being "white" isn't a celebration of a culture. It's a celebration of a stranglehold on power.
Want to celebrate something? Celebrate what you do have. Ethnicity, religion, language. Nobody objects to "appalachian pride," and they're whiter than a fresh snowfall.
I am amused by this. Largely because I live in the middle of the largest Somali population center in the state with the largest Somali population outside of ... Somalia. And it has brought the Black and White Americans together in a shared dislike of the Somalians.
But as far as the OP - flip the scrip - if that was the percentages against Obama amongst the white folks population, would that be racist? Sure.
But, far more importantly, are there still people who both care about national elections and think their votes matter? Talk about delusional.
Only once we all embrace apathy can we achieve a lasting world peace.
752
Post by: Polonius
dogma wrote: Polonius wrote: Almost nothing. There's an impolite term they would likely use to describe him.
Possibly, but I've heard that term used with regard to Obama as well.
Yeah... but there are always malcontents calling whoever is running or in power something or another. It's different when the accusation is, well... true. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Bromsy wrote: I am amused by this. Largely because I live in the middle of the largest Somali population center in the state with the largest Somali population outside of ... Somalia. And it has brought the Black and White Americans together in a shared dislike of the Somalians.
True, recent African immigrants are "black," but have shockingly little in common with African Americans. Maybe, in time, "black america" diversify, but right now it's pretty overwhelmingly homogenous, at least compared to Whites, Latinos, or Asians. It's what we get when our four "races" are actually three races and a language (white, asian, black, vs. Latino) with one race having essentially one nationality (black americans) and "white" being technically a race, but really more short hand for "non-ethnic."
30287
Post by: Bromsy
Polonius wrote: dogma wrote: Polonius wrote:
Almost nothing. There's an impolite term they would likely use to describe him.
Possibly, but I've heard that term used with regard to Obama as well.
Yeah... but there are always malcontents calling whoever is running or in power something or another. It's different when the accusation is, well... true.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote:
I am amused by this. Largely because I live in the middle of the largest Somali population center in the state with the largest Somali population outside of ... Somalia. And it has brought the Black and White Americans together in a shared dislike of the Somalians.
True, recent African immigrants are "black," but have shockingly little in common with African Americans. Maybe, in time, "black america" diversify, but right now it's pretty overwhelmingly homogenous, at least compared to Whites, Latinos, or Asians.
It's what we get when our four "races" are actually three races and a language (white, asian, black, vs. Latino) with one race having essentially one nationality (black americans) and "white" being technically a race, but really more short hand for "non-ethnic."
Well, hobviously. That American blacks aren't the same as African blacks wasn't the main thrust of my point, otherwise I'd have brought up Liberia. I'm just disagreeing with your assessment of "whites", in general. That there are groups based on exclusion can't be denied, but that is cultural, not racial. Everyone distrusts the new guy. Just how we work.
5534
Post by: dogma
Polonius wrote:
Yeah... but there are always malcontents calling whoever is running or in power something or another. It's different when the accusation is, well... true.
Its true in both cases. Obama is pretty much an *epithet* and so is Cain, the question regards how voting and approval would change if two black candidates went at it.
As I said above I think Obama wins out, but I think the defection might surprise some. Not because of racism, but because the perception of the GOP within the black community is very much about its hostility towards black people.
I would be interested to see what happened if that narrative were weakened.
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
Sebster wrote:and somehow continue to concede the Christian vote to the party that is opposed to charity and social justice.
Government handouts are not "charity". Charity is voluntary.
5470
Post by: sebster
There's nothing saying charity must be voluntary. The act of giving to those less fortunate is charity, whether everyone involved in the process volunteered their contribution or not.
Second up, the charity isn't you paying tax. That's you doing your part for the functioning of a modern economy. The charity is in the people, through the government, choosing to give some portion of the public fund to the poor.
More importantly, please just stop the imaginary games. No-one believes that you're against having money taken because you want to choose how much you give. We all know it's because you want to have the choice to give nothing. And that's fine, 'feth you I've got mine' is an effective political line. But stop with the pretending.
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
It's more "feth you, you don't know me". so stop pretending.
I don't think charitable donations is a tree the democrats want to start barking up either.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
dogma wrote:The original question actually makes me wonder what would have happened if Herman Cain had taken the nomination.
We would experience the most entertaining TV of all time between now and November. I seriously was hoping that Romney would've picked Cain for VP.
5470
Post by: sebster
Yeah. And the reason we need to legalise theft is so that I can have the choice to not to take other people's things. Yep, that makes perfect sense. People totally oppose giving because they want a theoretical moral choice that they'd never actually make.
At what point did we start pretending that rich people giving some money away could address the basic welfare requirements of modern life?
"We need about 2.5 trillion to fund government."
"Romney gave away 4 million."
"That number is really pointlessly small to the one I gave. It can't possibly be a substitute, so I have no clue why you're bringing it up."
"Because yay my guy and boo your guy."
9217
Post by: KingCracker
d-usa wrote:Black people not voting for the guy whose party is trying to make it harder for black people to vote and implies that they are all on welfare?
Clearly racist.
But welcome to the "if we made a white people club we are racist, but the NAACP is okay?" club.
Not to stray TOO far down that road, but my brother the Giant and I have actually felt that before in person. We had a great idea for a personal business tearing down mobile homes and then scrapping them ( people fled Michigan in droves, and left thousands of homes/mobile homes vacant) So anyways, we were lining up jobs and figured we should try and get a grant from the state to help pay for some of the tools and a dump truck. We were literally told by an official that dealt in those things, that we cant because we were white males. And I quote " Now if either of you were minorities, like black folk, youd get this grant approved by tomorrow"
Still to this day, when I think of that, Im a bit shocked.
221
Post by: Frazzled
AgeOfEgos wrote: sebster wrote:
Explained largely by Obama's ability to combine discussion of poverty with evangelical overtones, something that would appeal to a population that is very religious and largely concerned with poverty.
I think that's an excellent point Sebster. Note that a majority of African American leadership has the preceding honorific Reverend. President Obama broke that mold (perhaps not the first--but certainly the first with that degree of success).
Ironically, a fellow Reverend caused him a great deal of angst during the primary---and talk about navigating a political landmine? If anyone still has doubts that Obama is a skilled politician with a savvy campaign staff--just go back and listen/watch how he handled the Reverend Wright scandal.
And an MSM rooting for him in a big way. No other politician (especially on the right) would have been able to survive such an association. Automatically Appended Next Post: sebster wrote:
There's nothing saying charity must be voluntary. The act of giving to those less fortunate is charity, whether everyone involved in the process volunteered their contribution or not.
Thats the very definition of "not charity." Its easy to be cahritable with other people's money. Automatically Appended Next Post:  KingCracker wrote: d-usa wrote:Black people not voting for the guy whose party is trying to make it harder for black people to vote and implies that they are all on welfare?
Clearly racist.
But welcome to the "if we made a white people club we are racist, but the NAACP is okay?" club.
Not to stray TOO far down that road, but my brother the Giant and I have actually felt that before in person. We had a great idea for a personal business tearing down mobile homes and then scrapping them ( people fled Michigan in droves, and left thousands of homes/mobile homes vacant) So anyways, we were lining up jobs and figured we should try and get a grant from the state to help pay for some of the tools and a dump truck. We were literally told by an official that dealt in those things, that we cant because we were white males. And I quote " Now if either of you were minorities, like black folk, youd get this grant approved by tomorrow"
Still to this day, when I think of that, Im a bit shocked.
Why? Thats minority set asides. Now the smart evil one will set up a front "minority" to take the contract. A smarter evil one will have arelative run for office so they can steer valuable contracts to those companies. Time honored tradition. What you thought politicians suddenly got rich in office off their massive salaries? 
I found it hilarious. Rewatching Casino (with notes). The big politician towards the end who was being paid kickbacks and "entertainment" and who disavowed the Mob guy was based on an actual politician: Harry Reid. Good to be the King baby.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Frazzled wrote: AgeOfEgos wrote: sebster wrote:Explained largely by Obama's ability to combine discussion of poverty with evangelical overtones, something that would appeal to a population that is very religious and largely concerned with poverty.
I think that's an excellent point Sebster. Note that a majority of African American leadership has the preceding honorific Reverend. President Obama broke that mold (perhaps not the first--but certainly the first with that degree of success).
Ironically, a fellow Reverend caused him a great deal of angst during the primary---and talk about navigating a political landmine? If anyone still has doubts that Obama is a skilled politician with a savvy campaign staff--just go back and listen/watch how he handled the Reverend Wright scandal.
And an MSM rooting for him in a big way. No other politician (especially on the right) would have been able to survive such an association.
Not even slightly true. Over the last thirty years a bunch of big Republicans have been closely associated with equally inflammatory jackasses (usually with bigger audiences) like Jerry Falwell. And it's never hurt them any.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Mannahnin wrote: Frazzled wrote: AgeOfEgos wrote: sebster wrote:Explained largely by Obama's ability to combine discussion of poverty with evangelical overtones, something that would appeal to a population that is very religious and largely concerned with poverty.
I think that's an excellent point Sebster. Note that a majority of African American leadership has the preceding honorific Reverend. President Obama broke that mold (perhaps not the first--but certainly the first with that degree of success).
Ironically, a fellow Reverend caused him a great deal of angst during the primary---and talk about navigating a political landmine? If anyone still has doubts that Obama is a skilled politician with a savvy campaign staff--just go back and listen/watch how he handled the Reverend Wright scandal.
And an MSM rooting for him in a big way. No other politician (especially on the right) would have been able to survive such an association.
Not even slightly true. Over the last thirty years a bunch of big Republicans have been closely associated with equally inflammatory jackasses (usually with bigger audiences) like Jerry Falwell. And it's never hurt them any.
Incredibly true. None of them had a chane to be President. Obama's associations WITH A KNOWN TERRORIST AS A MENTOR would never have been glossed over if he weren't an MSM favored son.
752
Post by: Polonius
Frazzled wrote: Mannahnin wrote: Frazzled wrote: AgeOfEgos wrote: sebster wrote:Explained largely by Obama's ability to combine discussion of poverty with evangelical overtones, something that would appeal to a population that is very religious and largely concerned with poverty.
I think that's an excellent point Sebster. Note that a majority of African American leadership has the preceding honorific Reverend. President Obama broke that mold (perhaps not the first--but certainly the first with that degree of success). Ironically, a fellow Reverend caused him a great deal of angst during the primary---and talk about navigating a political landmine? If anyone still has doubts that Obama is a skilled politician with a savvy campaign staff--just go back and listen/watch how he handled the Reverend Wright scandal.
And an MSM rooting for him in a big way. No other politician (especially on the right) would have been able to survive such an association.
Not even slightly true. Over the last thirty years a bunch of big Republicans have been closely associated with equally inflammatory jackasses (usually with bigger audiences) like Jerry Falwell. And it's never hurt them any.
Incredibly true. None of them had a chane to be President. Obama's associations WITH A KNOWN TERRORIST AS A MENTOR would never have been glossed over if he weren't an MSM favored son.
Except, you know, reagan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority#1980 I mean, yes, at a point you can narrow the argument to "No Hawaiian born former law professor that associated with a chicago preacher/terrorist ever became president!" Sure, that's true. But you seem to rule out the possibility that people made a rational choice about Obama and Wright. That it's not the choice you would make doesn't make it the result of chicanery.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Polonius wrote: Frazzled wrote: Mannahnin wrote: Frazzled wrote: AgeOfEgos wrote: sebster wrote:Explained largely by Obama's ability to combine discussion of poverty with evangelical overtones, something that would appeal to a population that is very religious and largely concerned with poverty.
I think that's an excellent point Sebster. Note that a majority of African American leadership has the preceding honorific Reverend. President Obama broke that mold (perhaps not the first--but certainly the first with that degree of success). Ironically, a fellow Reverend caused him a great deal of angst during the primary---and talk about navigating a political landmine? If anyone still has doubts that Obama is a skilled politician with a savvy campaign staff--just go back and listen/watch how he handled the Reverend Wright scandal.
And an MSM rooting for him in a big way. No other politician (especially on the right) would have been able to survive such an association.
Not even slightly true. Over the last thirty years a bunch of big Republicans have been closely associated with equally inflammatory jackasses (usually with bigger audiences) like Jerry Falwell. And it's never hurt them any.
Incredibly true. None of them had a chane to be President. Obama's associations WITH A KNOWN TERRORIST AS A MENTOR would never have been glossed over if he weren't an MSM favored son.
Except, you know, reagan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority#1980 I mean, yes, at a point you can narrow the argument to "No Hawaiian born former law professor that associated with a chicago preacher/terrorist ever became president!" Sure, that's true. But you seem to rule out the possibility that people made a rational choice about Obama and Wright. That it's not the choice you would make doesn't make it the result of chicanery.
Whats wrong with the Moral Majority, especially pre 1980? Oh I'm not. I'm saying that association would have been made a much bigger deal. The association with Ayers however, would have precluded him from even running back in the day. Its like the normal vetting process (for both parties) have bpt aside and we've been awash in a sea of amateurs since Clinton. I mean lets get real. If the Republicans had a half decent candidate they would be stomping Obama like bad cheese right now.
752
Post by: Polonius
Frazzled wrote:
Whats wrong with the Moral Majority, especially pre 1980?
Oh I'm not. I'm saying that association would have been made a much bigger deal. The association with Ayers however, would have precluded him from even running back in the day.
Its like the normal vetting process (for both parties) have bpt aside and we've been awash in a sea of amateurs since Clinton.
I mean lets get real. If the Republicans had a half decent candidate they would be stomping Obama like bad cheese right now.
I think you're right, in that a good presidential candidate could win this race easily. Good luck finding that.
And I think that stuff was easier to hide in the past, not harder. First, there were no independent bloggers or the internet. Stuff really could be controlled by MSM.
Second, I think you're problem isn't that the MSM didn't cover the Ayers thing, it's just that nobody cared. I mean, even if you take a pretty slanted interpretation of the facts, "Obama's mentor is a terrorist," that gets some eyeballs, sure. Then people read further, and find out that he didn't mentor obama in terrorism. And that his association was distant and collegial. And long after he stopped being a terrorist. Soon, people get bored, because they don't want to hear about meetings in the 90's involving domestic terrorists from the 70s. It's just not a horribly interesting story.
I'm not going to pretend that there isn't bias in journalism. But sometimes stories fade away because they just aren't interesting.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Polonius wrote:[
I think you're right, in that a good presidential candidate could win this race easily. Good luck finding that.
Yep.
And I think that stuff was easier to hide in the past, not harder. First, there were no independent bloggers or the internet. Stuff really could be controlled by MSM.
Yep
Second, I think you're problem isn't that the MSM didn't cover the Ayers thing, it's just that nobody cared. I mean, even if you take a pretty slanted interpretation of the facts, "Obama's mentor is a terrorist," that gets some eyeballs, sure. Then people read further, and find out that he didn't mentor obama in terrorism. And that his association was distant and collegial. And long after he stopped being a terrorist. Soon, people get bored, because they don't want to hear about meetings in the 90's involving domestic terrorists from the 70s. It's just not a horribly interesting story.
I'm not going to pretend that there isn't bias in journalism. But sometimes stories fade away because they just aren't interesting.
Here we have to respectfully disagree. If there were a Republican candidate, there would have been an endless drumbeat about it. After al the MSM went berserk about a story of a prank, decades ago from the Romney past. Now put cocaine use and having your mentor being a Weatherman, and they would have been all over it like flies on roadkill.
41610
Post by: TheHammer
Yes, media bias is so horrible that we never talk about Ayers and instead talk about the drug money that was used to initially fund Bain Capital. Damn the drive by media!
Anyone who thinks that the Republicans had a lock this year with a good candidate is deluding themselves. A strong majority of the country believes that our current economic troubles are the fault of President Bush, and Obama is otherwise well liked. It's okay, though, when Romney loses and the Republican Party has a Night of Weird Knives it'll be hilarious to watch.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Frazzled wrote:
Incredibly true. None of them had a chane to be President. Obama's associations WITH A KNOWN TERRORIST AS A MENTOR would never have been glossed over if he weren't an MSM favored son.
perhaps it's more to do with how people's perceptions change over time.
Especially with regards to what does and does not make one a terrorist.
37231
Post by: d-usa
 reds8n wrote: Frazzled wrote:
Incredibly true. None of them had a chane to be President. Obama's associations WITH A KNOWN TERRORIST AS A MENTOR would never have been glossed over if he weren't an MSM favored son.
perhaps it's more to do with how people's perceptions change over time.
Especially with regards to what does and does not make one a terrorist.
Silly you, they are not terrorists.
If they are on our side they are brave freedom fighters.
34390
Post by: whembly
reds8n wrote: Frazzled wrote:
Incredibly true. None of them had a chane to be President. Obama's associations WITH A KNOWN TERRORIST AS A MENTOR would never have been glossed over if he weren't an MSM favored son.
perhaps it's more to do with how people's perceptions change over time.
Especially with regards to what does and does not make one a terrorist.
Not to get too OT, but at that time, the Taliban weren't that fething nuts (or, at least, it wasn't reported). I wonder when they started going extreme?!?!
Back on topic... I'm with Frazz, but I'll take it a step further... ANY politician (with (R) or (D) ) with Obama's history/association would've never made it. That just shows how powerful as a candidate and compaigner Obama is...
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Is that picture edited or is that really a woman in there on the far right? That's different from what I'd expect from the Taliban alright. And I dare say it looks like she's getting a word in... edge wise.
221
Post by: Frazzled
True that EXCEPT:
Ayers was a Weatherman, directly involved in bombings and activities that killed police in the 70s. His events were known.
The Taliban formed after Reagan came to office. Now you want one thats form that time look up his support of the rebels in El Salvador. Automatically Appended Next Post:  LordofHats wrote:Is that picture edited or is that really a woman in there on the far right? That's different from what I'd expect from the Taliban alright. And I dare say it looks like she's getting a word in... edge wise.
Don't worry I'm sure she visited a soccer stadium shortly after they came to power.
5394
Post by: reds8n
but at that time, the Taliban weren't that fething nuts (or, at least, it wasn't reported).
I don't think the Russians would agree here 
I wonder when they started going extreme?!?!
Victory proved that Allah was on their side AFAIK 
ANY politician (with (R) or (D) ) with Obama's history/association would've never made it. That just shows how powerful as a candidate and compaigner Obama is...
Possibly.
... I'm sure there's a line here about how it would have been better for him to remain as an unknown but I can't be bothered
Now you want one thats from that time look up his support of the rebels in El Salvador.
yeah, those nuns don't charbroil themselves after all ! 
41610
Post by: TheHammer
This is the problem with people who hate Obama.
They jump off the deep end on every single issue.
President Obama was in the same neighborhood and social circle as Ayers? TERRORISM
President Obama talks about how we all benefit from public infrastructure and services? YOU DIDN'T BUILD THAT
President Obama talks about "redistribution" because that's what a progressive tax is? COMMUNISM
More than anything else it's this attitude that is going to cost the Republicans this year. There's that squishy 7% of independents who don't hate Obama, and are turned off by this crap.
Republicans would be more successful if they tried to argue their points without lying about the other guy all the time.
221
Post by: Frazzled
That was the military actually. Yea they sucked.
The guerillas were in El Salvador fighting the sandanistas in neighboring Nicaragua.
34390
Post by: whembly
reds8n wrote: but at that time, the Taliban weren't that fething nuts (or, at least, it wasn't reported).
I don't think the Russians would agree here
Touche... you have a point.
I wonder when they started going extreme?!?!
Victory proved that Allah was on their side AFAIK
erm... okay?
ANY politician (with (R) or (D) ) with Obama's history/association would've never made it. That just shows how powerful as a candidate and compaigner Obama is...
Possibly.
... I'm sure there's a line here about how it would have been better for him to remain as an unknown but I can't be bothered
Red... that's during Reagan's Presidency... the association in question with Obama was BEFORE he ran for office. My point still stands...
5394
Post by: reds8n
.. yyeess.... and then what happened ? Rummy just upped and disappeared from public office then did he ?
Whilst the weathermen did some crappy things I wouldn't quite put them in the same league as ol' big moustache there.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
TheHammer wrote:This is the problem with people who hate Obama.
They jump off the deep end on every single issue.
President Obama was in the same neighborhood and social circle as Ayers? TERRORISM
...
The other thing about constantly raising pathetic points that obviously don't get any traction with any voter who isn't a confirmed Republican is that it give the impression that Republicans don't have anything substantive to sling at Obama.
41610
Post by: TheHammer
Exactly. There are lots of factual things the Republicans could criticize Obama for, although few are areas where I think the Republican alternative would be better but that's why Romney is so vague. Instead those legitimate concerns are laughed at because the Republicans have done a great job of marginalizing themselves.
221
Post by: Frazzled
reds8n wrote:.. yyeess.... and then what happened ? Rummy just upped and disappeared from public office then did he ?
Whilst the weathermen did some crappy things I wouldn't quite put them in the same league as ol' big moustache there.
Big Ole Moustache wasn't in the US at the time, nor did he kill Americans. Rumsfeld didn't run for office. A person who helped kill a police officer was Obama's mentor. You would never have heard the end of it if it were a conservative.
Kind of like how Ayers managed to be come a college professor in the first place...
41610
Post by: TheHammer
Four More Years! Four More Years!
34390
Post by: whembly
reds8n wrote:.. yyeess.... and then what happened ? Rummy just upped and disappeared from public office then did he ?
Whilst the weathermen did some crappy things I wouldn't quite put them in the same league as ol' big moustache there.
I'm not equate between the two... are you?
But being associated with someone who was part of a known DOMESTIC terrorist organization SHOULD'VE had more play... that's all I'm saying.
41610
Post by: TheHammer
President Obama's "association" with Ayers has been talked about way more than Romney's association with Salvadoran death squads and drug dealers.
And all you're saying is rubbish. Stop trying to make an issue where one doesn't exist, and then using outrage when it isn't talked about as much as you'd like.
221
Post by: Frazzled
TheHammer wrote:President Obama's "association" with Ayers has been talked about way more than Romney's association with Salvadoran death squads and drug dealers.
And all you're saying is rubbish. Stop trying to make an issue where one doesn't exist, and then using outrage when it isn't talked about as much as you'd like.
See what I mean.
34390
Post by: whembly
Frazzled wrote:TheHammer wrote:President Obama's "association" with Ayers has been talked about way more than Romney's association with Salvadoran death squads and drug dealers.
And all you're saying is rubbish. Stop trying to make an issue where one doesn't exist, and then using outrage when it isn't talked about as much as you'd like.
See what I mean.
Yup  .
41610
Post by: TheHammer
Awwww, it's cute when you people try to dog pile.
221
Post by: Frazzled
TBone likes to use the big dog's butt as a pillow. Th big dog hates this like an older brother can't stand his little brother. I will miss TBone very much.
5394
Post by: reds8n
No I disagree completely.
I'm not equate between the two... are you?
You might not be intending to but you most certainly are. At least the way you're phrasing things.
I think if you ( in the general sense) were a good friend of a still committed demostic (sic) terrorist then you'd have an issue indeed.
Seeing as the person in question repented -- like good christians are supposed to do -- and admitted his wrong doing and actively turned towards working towards peaceful solutions ... I'm alright with it.
I could/can certainly understand how friends/families/etc of those who suffered from the actions of the Weathermen could have an issue with forgiving Ayers and Co. ... and I feel very sorry for them and empathise immensely with them.
Saddam meanwhile was a brutal, violent dictator who used poison gas and chemical weapons -- with a little help of course -- who did indeed go on to be responsible for the deaths of Americans ( and, of course other coalition troops, innocent Kuwaitis etc etc ).
I think his actions were far worse than anything that Ayers et al did, and yet the fact that his regime was propped up and actively aided by Rumsfeld and Co. is... fine and dandy.
Rumsfeld didn't run for office
, yeah, he was totally unimportant and not involved in decision making at all.
221
Post by: Frazzled
reds8n wrote: No I disagree completely.
I'm not equate between the two... are you?
You might not be intending to but you most certainly are. At least the way you're phrasing things.
I think if you ( in the general sense) were a good friend of a still committed demostic (sic) terrorist then you'd have an issue indeed.
Seeing as the person in question repented -- like good christians are supposed to do -- and admitted his wrong doing and actively turned towards working towards peaceful solutions ... I'm alright with it.
I could/can certainly understand how friends/families/etc of those who suffered from the actions of the Weathermen could have an issue with forgiving Ayers and Co. ... and I feel very sorry for them and empathise immensely with them.
Saddam meanwhile was a brutal, violent dictator who used poison gas and chemical weapons -- with a little help of course -- who did indeed go on to be responsible for the deaths of Americans ( and, of course other coalition troops, innocent Kuwaitis etc etc ).
I think his actions were far worse than anything that Ayers et al did, and yet the fact that his regime was propped up and actively aided by Rumsfeld and Co. is... fine and dandy.
Rumsfeld didn't run for office
, yeah, he was totally unimportant and not involved in decision making at all.
Wait you're saying Ayers repented?
34390
Post by: whembly
reds8n wrote: No I disagree completely.
I'm not equate between the two... are you?
You might not be intending to but you most certainly are. At least the way you're phrasing things.
Sorry... not trying to as they're two separate issues (and they are issues).
I think if you ( in the general sense) were a good friend of a still committed demostic (sic) terrorist then you'd have an issue indeed.
Seeing as the person in question repented -- like good christians are supposed to do -- and admitted his wrong doing and actively turned towards working towards peaceful solutions ... I'm alright with it.
You might be alright with it... but I'm NOT.
I could/can certainly understand how friends/families/etc of those who suffered from the actions of the Weathermen could have an issue with forgiving Ayers and Co. ... and I feel very sorry for them and empathise immensely with them.
So I have to be the friends/family/etc in order to make the claim that I have issues with that? Woah...
Saddam meanwhile was a brutal, violent dictator who used poison gas and chemical weapons -- with a little help of course -- who did indeed go on to be responsible for the deaths of Americans ( and, of course other coalition troops, innocent Kuwaitis etc etc ).
I think his actions were far worse than anything that Ayers et al did, and yet the fact that his regime was propped up and actively aided by Rumsfeld and Co. is... fine and dandy.
Again... two separate issues...
Rumsfeld didn't run for office
, yeah, he was totally unimportant and not involved in decision making at all.
Separate issues.
1) We're talking about past associates PRIOR to Obama running for office... that's fair game.
2) Reagan was President when that happened...
5394
Post by: reds8n
You seem to be labouring under the idea that I'm on about Reagan here.
I'm not, I'm saying that Rumsfeld's actions , IMO, disqualify him for holding any high office at a later date, far more so than an acquaintance with Ayers that Obama had.
That's why they're not separate issues.
If one is claiming that a prior association with a "bad person" is a black mark on them or possibly should even preclude them from holding a position of importance at a later date then the situations are exactly analogous.
Wait you're saying Ayers repented
.. I don't see this as being more laughable than your fraudulent claim that Ayers was a "mentor" to Obama.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Frazzled; have you ever stopped to consider the idea that while the MSM might in general favour Obama, any effects of this are completely negated by how fervently one-sided Fox News is for the GOP?
I really think you should stop harping about the left-leaning bias of the mainstream media while Fox News is still on the air. It's akin to wearing a Yankees jersey and complaining that the teams aren't fair.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 azazel the cat wrote:Frazzled; have you ever stopped to consider the idea that while the MSM might in general favour Obama, any effects of this are completely negated by how fervently one-sided Fox News is for the GOP?
I really think you should stop harping about the left-leaning bias of the mainstream media while Fox News is still on the air. It's akin to wearing a Yankees jersey and complaining that the teams aren't fair.
You're right. One cable station completely hammers CBS, MSNBC, NPR, NBC, CNN, ABC, Pravda er the New York Times, and the Washington Post. Thats one badass network I must say. Of course CBS, NBC, and ABC have higher ratings but don't let that get in the way.
752
Post by: Polonius
Media bias is one of those accusations that are great. They are imposible to disprove (or prove), and thus can be made with virtual impunity.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Polonius wrote:Media bias is one of those accusations that are great. They are imposible to disprove (or prove), and thus can be made with virtual impunity.
Sixty percent of the viewing public no longer trusts the media. The percentage of distrust is highest among Republicans and Independents. The group with the highest trust level is Democrats. http://www.gallup.com/poll/157589/distrust-media-hits-new-high.aspx Studies have shown that reporters are heavily overweighted towards being registered Democrats.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Studies have also shown that reality has a liberal bias.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ahtman wrote:Studies have also shown that reality has a liberal bias.
Always a cute catchphrase that.
I prefer this one: Living has been proven to be a direct cause of death.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Frazzled wrote: Ahtman wrote:Studies have also shown that reality has a liberal bias.
Always a cute catchphrase that.
I prefer this one: Living has been proven to be a direct cause of death.
There is some truth to the liberal bias quote. And this is not so much because "the Dems are correct" (you'll never hear me say that without severe qualification); but because reality tends to me somewhere in the middle for obvious reasons, and the Republicans have moved their own goalposts so far to the right that much of their rhetoric is now just as grounded in reality as most Philip K. Dick novels.
And Frazzled, you're operating on some strange logic here: you seem to be under the impression that people are mistrustful of the media because it sometimes says things that they do not believe to be true; however this is not comparable to the media actually saying things that are evidently untrue. Fox News tends to perform the latter function, and then sounds the alarm that the rest of the media is lying to make them look bad.
221
Post by: Frazzled
azazel the cat wrote:Frazzled wrote: Ahtman wrote:Studies have also shown that reality has a liberal bias.
Always a cute catchphrase that.
I prefer this one: Living has been proven to be a direct cause of death.
There is some truth to the liberal bias quote. And this is not so much because "the Dems are correct" (you'll never hear me say that without severe qualification); but because reality tends to me somewhere in the middle for obvious reasons, and the Republicans have moved their own goalposts so far to the right that much of their rhetoric is now just as grounded in reality as most Philip K. Dick novels.
And Frazzled, you're operating on some strange logic here: you seem to be under the impression that people are mistrustful of the media because it sometimes says things that they do not believe to be true; however this is not comparable to the media actually saying things that are evidently untrue. Fox News tends to perform the latter function, and then sounds the alarm that the rest of the media is lying to make them look bad.
I trust the poll like I trust unfettered market pricing. It represents the wisdom of hundreds of thousands of individual decisions. (ok thousands in the case of a poll). There is wisdom and logic there. There's no way you successfully argue the MSM is not biased, any more than I could argue talk radio is not biased.
EDIT: to the quote: reality has a ;iberal bias.
Really? The Middle East and the Stans pretty much blow that out of the water. Indeed the US has ebbed and flowed on many issues, and will continue to do so.
44290
Post by: LoneLictor
TheHammer wrote:Exactly. There are lots of factual things the Republicans could criticize Obama for, although few are areas where I think the Republican alternative would be better but that's why Romney is so vague. Instead those legitimate concerns are laughed at because the Republicans have done a great job of marginalizing themselves.
This describes it perfectly.
It has been proven that Obama has violated the Constitution with Gitmo and other stuff. This is not a matter of opinion; its a matter of fact.
But Romney plans on violating the Constitution even more, so he can't insult Obama regarding that.
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:
Here we have to respectfully disagree. If there were a Republican candidate, there would have been an endless drumbeat about it. After al the MSM went berserk about a story of a prank, decades ago from the Romney past. Now put cocaine use and having your mentor being a Weatherman, and they would have been all over it like flies on roadkill.
The Ayers story was headline news for a good few months. Compare this to Bush II's drug and alcohol abuse about which very little was said.
I think you're beginning from a position that assumes a particular kind of media bias, and trying to shape evidence to fit that position. You may also just be more sensitive to stories about Republicans, and so perceive them as being more pervasive than they actually are.
Frazzled wrote:
There's no way you successfully argue the MSM is not biased, any more than I could argue talk radio is not biased.
Sure you can, and one easy way of doing it is by noting how the label "MSM" tends to mean "all media that isn't conservative."
752
Post by: Polonius
Is that because of a liberal bias in media, or in an anti-media bias in conservatism?
5470
Post by: sebster
Frazzled wrote:And an MSM rooting for him in a big way. No other politician (especially on the right) would have been able to survive such an association.
And now it's clear Fraz is entirely ignorant of the religious right. Whether that's through choice or circumstance, I don't know. And you insistence that Ayers was a mentor of Obama is just nonsense. Absolute piffle. Poppycock. Nonsense. The claims or a man who does not care about reality. It isn't true. We've all known it wasn't true since 2008. And I think that thing the conservatives call the mainstream media would do exactly as good a job of hyping up and generally inventing an exciting but untrue fiction about any loose acquaintance between a former terrorist and future president. Thats the very definition of "not charity." Its easy to be cahritable with other people's money.
Charity is giving to someone in need. Everything else is just spank you and other right wingers have made up inside your heads. Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:I mean lets get real. If the Republicans had a half decent candidate they would be stomping Obama like bad cheese right now.
'If' is what losers talk about. Automatically Appended Next Post: whembly wrote:Not to get too OT, but at that time, the Taliban weren't that fething nuts (or, at least, it wasn't reported). I wonder when they started going extreme?!?!
Basically, when an empire invades your country, and begins using heavily armed helicopter gunships in reprisal attacks against civilian populations, people go a little nuts. When another empire supplies your insurgency with high end weapons, people remain about as nuts. When the first empire retreats, and the second empire walks away thinking the job is done, and the people are left with a collection of bomb craters where they country used to be, then everyone goes really nuts. And it needs to be clarified that the Americans didn't work with the Taliban. They worked with other insurgent groups in the country, groups that would later be known as the Northern Alliance - the guys who fought a losing war against the Taliban until the US led invasion in 2001. Saying the US worked with the Taliban is a bit like claiming that Ayers mentored Obama. It's just a product of political system where a significant number of people think it's their job to make up lies about the other side.
12313
Post by: Ouze
As someone of hispanic descent and having grown up in a hispanic community, it's mind-blowing that the GOP has not made inroads among those communities. Hispanics are natural Republicans in many ways.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Polonius wrote:
Is that because of a liberal bias in media, or in an anti-media bias in conservatism?
I'd posit the latter is a reaction to the former. Automatically Appended Next Post: sebster wrote: Frazzled wrote:And an MSM rooting for him in a big way. No other politician (especially on the right) would have been able to survive such an association.
And now it's clear Fraz is entirely ignorant of the religious right.
Religious Right in reality - no, not at all. They are about a 9 on Frazzled's list of groups he can't stand and can stay the hell off his lawn. About the ame level as California/Austin/Bloomberg nanny state liberals. Everyone wants to tell me what to do, like they aren't a waste of skin to begin with.
Religious RIght on TV, you betcha. Don't have a clue.
37231
Post by: d-usa
The Republicans should be winning this election, and if it was up to them they would be running a candidate that is even worse/more extreme than Romney.
They should look at their party and realize that they no longer represent a majority of Americans and that they need to adjust (not abandon all their principles, but adjust them). They will probably "double down" instead though.
221
Post by: Frazzled
d-usa wrote:The Republicans should be winning this election, and if it was up to them they would be running a candidate that is even worse/more extreme than Romney.
They should look at their party and realize that they no longer represent a majority of Americans and that they need to adjust (not abandon all their principles, but adjust them). They will probably "double down" instead though.
Ancient Budha say, never listen to your enemy when he tries to give you "helpful" advice.
Conservatives (not Republicans) remain a majority in the states. Newsflash: The Democrats aren't a majority either. Self avowed independents have been growing in number for some time.
37231
Post by: d-usa
There is conservative, and there is crazy.
Both parties have moved right, but the GOP has picked up some nut cases in the last 4 years. Democrats still have an easier time picking up independents and moderates at this time.
Of course I think we should get rid of the electoral college and just elect senators by state the way it is now and divide the house up based on a national "x party got x% of the national vote, 152 seats for you" kind of way.
Representative democracy is a sham when the majority of people vote party line anyway.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Ouze wrote:As someone of hispanic descent and having grown up in a hispanic community, it's mind-blowing that the GOP has not made inroads among those communities. Hispanics are natural Republicans in many ways.
But there are too many more ways that hispanics are not natural Republicans:
-they are not caucasian
-due to high rates of immigration, their demogrpahic is of a lower economic standing.
-higher rates of immigrants in their demographic
-tend to be Catholic, not evangelical (not entirely sure how much of a factor this is anymore)
d-usa wrote:There is conservative, and there is crazy.
Both parties have moved right, but the GOP has picked up some nut cases in the last 4 years. Democrats still have an easier time picking up independents and moderates at this time.
Of course I think we should get rid of the electoral college and just elect senators by state the way it is now and divide the house up based on a national "x party got x% of the national vote, 152 seats for you" kind of way.
Representative democracy is a sham when the majority of people vote party line anyway.
I'd kinda like to see the senate determined by popular vote rather than electoral college. It'd add a new element to the "sober second thought" rationale.
34390
Post by: whembly
azazel the cat wrote:
d-usa wrote:There is conservative, and there is crazy.
Both parties have moved right, but the GOP has picked up some nut cases in the last 4 years. Democrats still have an easier time picking up independents and moderates at this time.
Of course I think we should get rid of the electoral college and just elect senators by state the way it is now and divide the house up based on a national "x party got x% of the national vote, 152 seats for you" kind of way.
Representative democracy is a sham when the majority of people vote party line anyway.
I'd kinda like to see the senate determined by popular vote rather than electoral college. It'd add a new element to the "sober second thought" rationale.
You mean the President via popular vote... right?
I'd go back to the state's legislature voting for the Senate.
37231
Post by: d-usa
whembly wrote: azazel the cat wrote:
d-usa wrote:There is conservative, and there is crazy.
Both parties have moved right, but the GOP has picked up some nut cases in the last 4 years. Democrats still have an easier time picking up independents and moderates at this time.
Of course I think we should get rid of the electoral college and just elect senators by state the way it is now and divide the house up based on a national "x party got x% of the national vote, 152 seats for you" kind of way.
Representative democracy is a sham when the majority of people vote party line anyway.
I'd kinda like to see the senate determined by popular vote rather than electoral college. It'd add a new element to the "sober second thought" rationale.
You mean the President via popular vote... right?
I'd go back to the state's legislature voting for the Senate.
I am fine with the senate the way it is, not sure if I would like having a state's legislature voting for it. If we make it a state legislature thing then I think Senators should not have a fixed term, but should be replaced whenever a state legislature changes. In Oklahoma our entire house is up every 2 years, and half our senate every 4. So I think it would be dumb if a legislature that is republican appoints a senator for 6 years, and in 2 years the legislature becomes democrat and is stuck with somebody. If Senators are state appointed, then they should have the same term as the legislature that appoints them. Senate should be state specific though.
I would like the house to be based on a popular vote though, in some sort of x% = x seats. I'm not sure if I would tie it to the presidential vote though, since it seems to break apart the separation of the branches to much. House and Presidency would almost always be controlled by the same party by default in a system like this. I think I would prefer either a separate state vote or a breakdown of the presidential vote by state (although I would prefer the state vote more) and have their seats determined by percentage.
Oklahoma has 5 seats for example, so each 20% gives you an uncontested seat. The democrats would have a system similar to electors where they say "these are our 5 candidates", same for the republicans, etc. So a 55-45 split in the vote towards republicans would send 3 R's and 2 D's to DC.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And just to tie some "is this racist" back into this mix:
It appears these pictures hosted on the Mecklenburg County VA Republican Party Facebook page are causing a bit of a stink:
34390
Post by: whembly
Damn... That's pretty bad D...
Regardless on how to coincide the term limits between the US Senate vs. State legislatures, I think that a "governing body" such as each states' legislature, wouldn't involve as much as "partisan politics" when nominating/voting for someone to US Senate. I think the Senate would be a bit different if they're held accountable by their home state legislatures.
I think also, this would force the local voters in having more vested interest in their local elections...
37231
Post by: d-usa
It always surprises me that there is less turnout for Governor races than presidential races in Oklahoma, considering that state races are going to have a much higher impact on us than presidential races.
241
Post by: Ahtman
whembly wrote:wouldn't involve as much as "partisan politics" when nominating/voting for someone to US Senate.
Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Pics do not offend me. Same as the ones of Romney.
34390
Post by: whembly
Ahtman wrote: whembly wrote:wouldn't involve as much as "partisan politics" when nominating/voting for someone to US Senate.
Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
Why not? I mean...sure there's going to be politics involved...
Let me put it this way...
Don't you think the State's legislature should have a "say" in the Federal Government in some way?
It used to be that way... people voted for House and the state's legislature voted for the Senate....
Automatically Appended Next Post: d-usa wrote:It always surprises me that there is less turnout for Governor races than presidential races in Oklahoma, considering that state races are going to have a much higher impact on us than presidential races.
Yeah... I don't understand that either...
(I'm pretty sure the MO governor is at same time as Prez).
37231
Post by: d-usa
Can't really say that I am surprised.
5534
Post by: dogma
I'm still sticking with my normal line that, absent MSNBC, what people call the "liberal media" is really just "not the conservative media" in much the same way my more leftist friends talk about the "conservative media" as "not the liberal media." This is why I see conservatives calling CNN liberal in roughly the same proportion that liberals call it conservative.
I've noticed in personal experience and paying attention to rhetoric that any information which does not conform to ones preconceptions is labelled as biased against those preconceptions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:The Republicans should be winning this election, and if it was up to them they would be running a candidate that is even worse/more extreme than Romney.
They should look at their party and realize that they no longer represent a majority of Americans and that they need to adjust (not abandon all their principles, but adjust them). They will probably "double down" instead though.
As much as it pains me to say it, I think the problem is quite the opposite. The GOP has, since Reagan, exploited social conservatism (and arguably fiscal conservatism) without actually enacting policies that group would like. The RINO charge is nonsense, but the origin of that sentiment has a very clear basis in reality. I mean, how many Republicans have made serious attempts at passing a ban on abortion? Even now, when social conservatives have the most power they've had in damn near forever, the GOP is talking about an Amendment. That sounds nice and strong, but in reality its kicking the can because they know it will never be passed if they bring it to table.
What's happening now is that the GOP is being forced to engage with the most vocal elements that support it, thank you mass media. Hopefully this ends up being a two-way process in which the supporting elements learn from the existing party and the process itself, but I suspect we're in for at least 5-10 years of theatrical flailing.
Its funny, because the characteristic disunity of the Democrats actually prepared them for the advent of mass engagement with the internet. They seem to have reflexively understood how to organize and leverage a large number of vaguely assenting people. Of course, it also helps that they lost two major elections during the time in which the internet was becoming a "thing".
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
whembly wrote: Ahtman wrote: whembly wrote:wouldn't involve as much as "partisan politics" when nominating/voting for someone to US Senate.
Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
Why not? I mean...sure there's going to be politics involved...
Let me put it this way...
Don't you think the State's legislature should have a "say" in the Federal Government in some way?
It seems to me that a separation of powers between state and federal government is part of the checks and balances of the US system. That would be reduced by allowing state governments rather than the people to vote for senators and the president.
I know the president is elected by the electoral college, not the people, and perhaps that should be changed.
5534
Post by: dogma
whembly wrote:
Regardless on how to coincide the term limits between the US Senate vs. State legislatures, I think that a "governing body" such as each states' legislature, wouldn't involve as much as "partisan politics" when nominating/voting for someone to US Senate. I think the Senate would be a bit different if they're held accountable by their home state legislatures.
If you eliminate direct election you eliminate Senatorial battles as significant political events. This means the more important issue becomes the battle for the state Legislature, which a far more widespread and expensive battle.
As it is now for a party to push a senate seat they just have flood a state with advertising money, if you remove direct election they have to target individual districts in order to place sympathetic voters into office. In the past this would mean greater partisan power, but now you can run an effective political campaign for free thanks to the confluence of the internet and local news coverage.
You certainly end up with a different Senate, but whether or not its more or less partisan is hard to say, and dependent on how rigidly campaign finance law is enforced.
34390
Post by: whembly
dogma wrote:
If you eliminate direct election you eliminate Senatorial battles as significant political events. This means the more important issue becomes the battle for the state Legislature, which a far more widespread and expensive battle.
As it is now for a party to push a senate seat they just have flood a state with advertising money, if you remove direct election they have to target individual districts in order to place sympathetic voters into office. In the past this would mean greater partisan power, but now you can run an effective political campaign for free thanks to the confluence of the internet and local news coverage.
You certainly end up with a different Senate, but whether or not its more or less partisan is hard to say, and dependent on how rigidly campaign finance law is enforced.
Let me ask you this then...
Hypothecally, let's say that the State's Legislature does vote for the US Senate (ie, 17th amendment is repealed)...
Forget about your views on the ACA bill...
It expands Medicare and Medicaid that forces the states to pay for these expansion.
Do you think those US Senators would pass that bill as-is knowing that their home state's legislatures would have to pay for these expansions? Or any other bill that requires the States to "do something" in order to recieve funding?
37231
Post by: d-usa
You might end up with a senate that functions more like the Bundesrat of Germany.
34390
Post by: whembly
d-usa wrote:You might end up with a senate that functions more like the Bundesrat of Germany.
?? okay... I'll admit my ignorance... I'm gonna do some research on that.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Nice of you to cherry pick that one sentence D-USA. Why not add both of them instead of making me a passive racist
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Stop claiming that pics making fun of Mitt for being a rich, out-of-touch douchebag are the same as ones portraying Obama as an African savage with a bone through his nose, and maybe you'll stop looking like a racist.
I'm pretty sure you're not a racist, but you seriously need to pay more attention to what you're looking at and the comments you make on it. At least if you don't want to look like a racist.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
I do look at the pic's. D-USA posted pics to get a response and he got one from me. I pointed it out that it doesn't bother me because all the freaking pic's of Mitt already been posted. Yet no one played a race card pic yet beside D-USA. So back up and think outside the box Manny instead of staying in a narrow lane.
241
Post by: Ahtman
I've seen several people post those pics of Obama in a serious manner, especially the one of him in the 'wife beater' shirt.
I'm not sure d-usa showing pictures that are being used by people (you'll recall he said the pics were on a Republican web site, not just some blog) is 'playing the race card'. Showing that Republicans on an official Republican website are posting pictures like that should be offensive to anyone, as it demeans us all. It isn't playing a card, it is showing actual goddamn racism.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Frazzled wrote:Here we have to respectfully disagree. If there were a Republican candidate, there would have been an endless drumbeat about it. After al the MSM went berserk about a story of a prank, decades ago from the Romney past. Now put cocaine use and having your mentor being a Weatherman, and they would have been all over it like flies on roadkill.
Frazzled wrote: reds8n wrote:.. yyeess.... and then what happened ? Rummy just upped and disappeared from public office then did he ?
Whilst the weathermen did some crappy things I wouldn't quite put them in the same league as ol' big moustache there.
Big Ole Moustache wasn't in the US at the time, nor did he kill Americans. Rumsfeld didn't run for office. A person who helped kill a police officer was Obama's mentor. You would never have heard the end of it if it were a conservative.
Why do you repeat this kind of crap? What kind of stuff are you reading and watching? Didn't you get your video on the mail? Why haven't you switched over to the new line of crazy crap, claiming that Obama's real dad was a Communist propagandist, and Obama's been a secret Communist agent this whole time?
Ayers didn't help kill any cops. Are you talking about Sgt. McDonnell, in the Park Precinct bombing? You know that new grand juries in 2001 and 2009 investigated Ayers in regards to that again, and found that a different organization did that one, right?
Romney’s school days incident was a story for about a week. Even the most rapid liberals dropped it after maybe two. Ayers was in the news for months, as Fox and the McCain campaign tried to get political mileage out of it. Every news outfit not working directly to support Republicans ran with it as well, for quite a while, because it sounded sexy and controversial. Stephanopoulos even asked about it in one of the debates, at Hannity’s suggestion, because such a stink was made out of it. News organizations gradually dropped it as it turned out to have basically no substance, and viewers weren’t interested in it , aside from people so desperate for dirt on Obama that they didn’t care if it was real dirt or manufactured baloney. Hence why Fox kept running it for so long, as that describes half their audience.
When people hear “terrorist” it certainly sounds interesting. When a co-worker of mine first mentioned the idea that Obama was connected to terrorists, which she got from her brother in one of the intelligence agencies, the image that leapt to mind was something like Al Qaeda. And of course that's what the scumbags manufacturing the story want you to think. Barack HUSSEIN Obama the terrorist sympathizer.
Of course, then when people read that the Weathermen never killed anyone (except a few of their own in an accidental explosion), and were careful to give advance notice to evacuate and/or hit empty government buildings and offices, and that it was all in protest of their own country’s involvement in Vietnam… It becomes obvious that they’re not exactly similar to Al Qaeda or its ilk, which deliberately kill large numbers of people. Or even Right-wing domestic terrorists, who have killed on numerous occasions. Then when people learn that most of the charges were dropped against them back in the 1970s due to illegal FBI activities against them, that takes away even more of their “ooh, scary”, factor. Then when they read that Ayers left the group in the 70s, and in 1997 was Citizen of the Year in Chicago for his work in public school reform, it becomes manifestly obvious that there’s nothing scary about him at all, and that while he has a criminal past he’s mostly accepted in his field and community. When people try to tar Obama with the association, it comes off as silly and dumb, because Obama was a child when Ayers was doing anything criminal, and didn’t even meet Ayers until 1995, when Ayers was a widely-respected guy working in education and school reform in Chicago.
The Wright stuff is similarly insubstantial, because Wright’s comments are not particularly more radical or unusual than those of many public and televised preachers. We don’t generally hold politicians responsible for comments made by priests they’re associated with. Most people don’t hold Republican candidates responsible for Falwell orGraham’s more bigoted and insane comments, despite candidates “palling around” with those jackasses and going to speak at the ironically-named Liberty University. Wright’s a dumbass, but not a particularly unusual or extreme dumbass.
5534
Post by: dogma
whembly wrote:
Do you think those US Senators would pass that bill as-is knowing that their home state's legislatures would have to pay for these expansions? Or any other bill that requires the States to "do something" in order to recieve funding?
It depends on the state. Some states save money, others do not. I imagine that the states which do not save money would see their representatives vote against, at least if we control for ideological disposition, and the ones that did would vote for.
A better question is whether or not the bill would be passed, which I don't know off the top of my head. It would depend on, as I said above, ideological bias and net cost across all voting parties.
49775
Post by: DIDM
yea, being a minority that was enslaved when they got here and have really not gotten any fair treatment a lot of the time somehow gets into office and his dark skinned brothers and sisters embracing that is odd? Since we started as a country we have had a white religious man as our "leader"
change is good, in fact it is actually NECESSARY. Now has this change of skin color and name been any good for US, that is to be seen. In all honesty most everything done by a president isn't seen right away. Changes take time, plain and simple
34390
Post by: whembly
dogma wrote: whembly wrote:
Do you think those US Senators would pass that bill as-is knowing that their home state's legislatures would have to pay for these expansions? Or any other bill that requires the States to "do something" in order to recieve funding?
It depends on the state. Some states save money, others do not. I imagine that the states which do not save money would see their representatives vote against, at least if we control for ideological disposition, and the ones that did would vote for.
A better question is whether or not the bill would be passed, which I don't know off the top of my head. It would depend on, as I said above, ideological bias and net cost across all voting parties.
Let me take that a step further...
I think that the local legislatures, regardless of political ideology, would consider the cost of such bill and pressure their Senators to vote in favor or against.
37231
Post by: d-usa
People will neve see what they don't want to see.
27872
Post by: Samus_aran115
Seaward wrote:I'm referring to the poll mentioned in this editorial. 94% of African-Americans intend to vote for Obama, 0% intend to vote for Romney. If 94% of white folks planned to vote for a white guy running against a black candidate - and, moreover, exactly none planned to vote for the black dude - would that not be considered a fairly clear sign of racism?
As hard as I find it to believe that any black person would vote for Romney, I'm sure a few of them will. No, it isn't. They aren't voting for Obama because Romney is a "mean ol' white cracka man"; they're voting for Obama because Romney is a fething nightmare. It's not racism, at least how I see it. It's a bunch of inadvertent cleverness.
5534
Post by: dogma
Mannahnin wrote: Frazzled wrote:A person who helped kill a police officer was Obama's mentor. You would never have heard the end of it if it were a conservative.
Why do you repeat this kind of crap?
I have roughly the same relationships with Bill Ayers that Obama does. We've shaken hands a couple times, attended some of the same functions, and have some common "friends". We've done these things because living in Chicago and being involved with politics entails engaging with certain people, just as it would in any city.
Apparently Bill Ayers is now my mentor, and Fraz is a horrible person because he has conversed with me.
Also, let's be clear, Bill Ayers is not a nice person. His extremism has moved from blowing things up to being unable to tolerate dissent with respect to his beliefs.
Mannahnin wrote:
Wright’s a dumbass, but not a particularly unusual or extreme dumbass.
Mother of God is he a dumbass. I met him through my dad at a UCC council of ministers, and he's as much of a dick as you would expect (lots of smiling and nodding followed). Also he's a little bit corrupt.
Of course, that use of tax exemption is not uncommon among ministers, and its not uncommon for long time pastors to be given retirement gifts by the congregation. My dad does it too and I imagine you would be hard pressed to find an minister that didn't do it.
34390
Post by: whembly
dogma wrote: Mannahnin wrote: Frazzled wrote:A person who helped kill a police officer was Obama's mentor. You would never have heard the end of it if it were a conservative.
Why do you repeat this kind of crap?
I have roughly the same relationships with Bill Ayers that Obama does. We've shaken hands a couple times, attended some of the same functions, and have some common "friends". We've done these things because living in Chicago and being involved with politics entails engaging with certain people, just as it would in any city.
Apparently Bill Ayers is now my mentor, and Fraz is a horrible person because he has conversed with me.
Also, let's be clear, Bill Ayers is not a nice person. His extremism has moved from blowing things up to being unable to tolerate dissent with respect to his beliefs.
Mannahnin wrote:
Wright’s a dumbass, but not a particularly unusual or extreme dumbass.
Mother of God is he a dumbass. I met him through my dad at a UCC council of ministers, and he's as much of a dick as you would expect (lots of smiling and nodding followed). Also he's a little bit corrupt.
Of course, that use of tax exemption is not uncommon among ministers, and its not uncommon for long time pastors to be given retirement gifts by the congregation. My dad does it too and I imagine you would be hard pressed to find an minister that didn't do it.
/snark on
So... Dogma... buddy... when are you running for office? 
/snark off
5470
Post by: sebster
Frazzled wrote:Religious Right in reality - no, not at all. They are about a 9 on Frazzled's list of groups he can't stand and can stay the hell off his lawn. About the ame level as California/Austin/Bloomberg nanny state liberals. Everyone wants to tell me what to do, like they aren't a waste of skin to begin with. Religious RIght on TV, you betcha. Don't have a clue.
If you were aware of the religious right, then you'd be aware of some of the truly horrible, and deeply crazy claims made by many of their leaders, and you'd be aware those leaders frequently attend or even host fundraisers for various Republican candidates. These candidates survive just fine despite having much closer ties than Obama had to Ayers. So the only sensible conclusion is that it has nothing to do with the conservative idea of the mainstream media, and everything to do with the simple fact that Americans don't really care if you happen to have know a guy who's a nutcase. d-usa wrote:It always surprises me that there is less turnout for Governor races than presidential races in Oklahoma, considering that state races are going to have a much higher impact on us than presidential races.
It blows my mind that in states like California and Texas the participation rate increases in a close election. So obviously more people are motivated to vote because they might swing the election... but it's California and Texas - the state's electoral votes are comfortably going Democract and Republican respectively. People just aren't that rational. dogma wrote:I'm still sticking with my normal line that, absent MSNBC, what people call the "liberal media" is really just "not the conservative media" in much the same way my more leftist friends talk about the "conservative media" as "not the liberal media." This is why I see conservatives calling CNN liberal in roughly the same proportion that liberals call it conservative.
Whereas really everyone should just be calling CNN bad. I've noticed in personal experience and paying attention to rhetoric that any information which does not conform to ones preconceptions is labelled as biased against those preconceptions.
Absolutely. dogma wrote:Its funny, because the characteristic disunity of the Democrats actually prepared them for the advent of mass engagement with the internet. They seem to have reflexively understood how to organize and leverage a large number of vaguely assenting people. Of course, it also helps that they lost two major elections during the time in which the internet was becoming a "thing".
That was really good summary. I've often thought the "big tent" of the Republican party was actually only three bits, corporate interests, fiscal conservatives and social conservatives, and that the whole thing basically relied on the fiscal and social conservatives not noticing that the party never delivered anything they wanted. Not that I'm getting ahead of the game here, everytime one party or the other loses a race you see plenty of calls that now we'll see the party collapse, and everytime the party stays together because, well, where else are these people going to go? The Libertarians?
23
Post by: djones520
dogma wrote: Mannahnin wrote: Frazzled wrote:A person who helped kill a police officer was Obama's mentor. You would never have heard the end of it if it were a conservative.
Why do you repeat this kind of crap?
I have roughly the same relationships with Bill Ayers that Obama does. We've shaken hands a couple times, attended some of the same functions, and have some common "friends". We've done these things because living in Chicago and being involved with politics entails engaging with certain people, just as it would in any city.
Apparently Bill Ayers is now my mentor, and Fraz is a horrible person because he has conversed with me.
Also, let's be clear, Bill Ayers is not a nice person. His extremism has moved from blowing things up to being unable to tolerate dissent with respect to his beliefs.
Mannahnin wrote:
Wright’s a dumbass, but not a particularly unusual or extreme dumbass.
Mother of God is he a dumbass. I met him through my dad at a UCC council of ministers, and he's as much of a dick as you would expect (lots of smiling and nodding followed). Also he's a little bit corrupt.
Of course, that use of tax exemption is not uncommon among ministers, and its not uncommon for long time pastors to be given retirement gifts by the congregation. My dad does it too and I imagine you would be hard pressed to find an minister that didn't do it.
His connection to Ayers is a little bit more then that, but you are correct that it's hardly a big thing. Sitting on 9 man boards together for several years, attending dozens of meetings, there is going to be a lot more interaction then just shaking hands. Going to retreats, working on other community projects together, and even sitting on a panel together that Michelle Obama organized. I'd call them professional acquantances. Mentor is a stretch, but they did spend 7 years continually crossing paths on many things.
7926
Post by: youbedead
sebster wrote:
dogma wrote:I'm still sticking with my normal line that, absent MSNBC, what people call the "liberal media" is really just "not the conservative media" in much the same way my more leftist friends talk about the "conservative media" as "not the liberal media." This is why I see conservatives calling CNN liberal in roughly the same proportion that liberals call it conservative.
Whereas really everyone should just be calling CNN bad.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
sebster wrote:
...
...
I've often thought the "big tent" of the Republican party was actually only three bits, corporate interests, fiscal conservatives and social conservatives, and that the whole thing basically relied on the fiscal and social conservatives not noticing that the party never delivered anything they wanted.
...
The Tea Party is the symptom of the fiscal and social conservatives noticing that the traditional Republicans did not deliver what they wanted.
33125
Post by: Seaward
 Samus_aran115 wrote:As hard as I find it to believe that any black person would vote for Romney, I'm sure a few of them will. No, it isn't. They aren't voting for Obama because Romney is a "mean ol' white cracka man"; they're voting for Obama because Romney is a fething nightmare.
It's not racism, at least how I see it. It's a bunch of inadvertent cleverness.
I'm not as convinced. I think any large demographic voting in such a monolithic fashion should raise an eyebrow or two.
37231
Post by: d-usa
The only time people questioned 90%+ of a demographic voting for the same party that they have been voting for was when they followed the established pattern when a black guy was running.
They are voting the way they have always votes, questioning it now is more racist than the actual vote.
752
Post by: Polonius
Seaward wrote:I'm not as convinced. I think any large demographic voting in such a monolithic fashion should raise an eyebrow or two.
I agree. It shows either that the group in question is all biased in some way, or that they are all making a rational choice.
I think it's a combination.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
 Jihadin wrote:Almost though for moment if I didn't vote for Obama I'm a racist.
Don't worry. It doesn't need to say that. It's implied.
29194
Post by: Luco
Polonius wrote:
To celebrate being "white" isn't a celebration of a culture. It's a celebration of a stranglehold on power.
I'm sure I'm misreading your point, do explain? What is wrong with celebrating and studying the cultures of Europe, ancient to present, and her diaspora?
963
Post by: Mannahnin
HBMC wrote:Jihadin wrote:Almost though for moment if I didn't vote for Obama I'm a racist.
Don't worry. It doesn't need to say that. It's implied.
Nice drive-by trolling, H. Thanks for stopping by the OT for such a valuable contribution. No one said or implied that, so don't be ridiculous. Jihadin said he didn't see the difference between calling mocking Mitt as rich and out of touch, vs. mocking Obama as being a shaman with a bone through his nose. That's ignoring obvious and real racism.
 Luco wrote: Polonius wrote:To celebrate being "white" isn't a celebration of a culture. It's a celebration of a stranglehold on power.
I'm sure I'm misreading your point, do explain? What is wrong with celebrating and studying the cultures of Europe, ancient to present, and her diaspora?
He clearly explained it. Being "white" is not a culture. Being of Irish descent, or Swedish descent, or Italian descent, or Ashkenazi descent; those are cultural heritages.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Mannahnin wrote:HBMC wrote:Jihadin wrote:Almost though for moment if I didn't vote for Obama I'm a racist.
Don't worry. It doesn't need to say that. It's implied.
Nice drive-by trolling, H. Thanks for stopping by the OT for such a valuable contribution. No one said or implied that, so don't be ridiculous. Jihadin said he didn't see the difference between calling mocking Mitt as rich and out of touch, vs. mocking Obama as being a shaman with a bone through his nose. That's ignoring obvious and real racism.
Obama being black doesn't make him immune to caricature and humor. I think that you and many others are quick to jump up and call racism in defense of Obama. It's a prejudice of your own to find offense where none exists.
37231
Post by: d-usa
AustonT wrote: Mannahnin wrote:HBMC wrote:Jihadin wrote:Almost though for moment if I didn't vote for Obama I'm a racist.
Don't worry. It doesn't need to say that. It's implied.
Nice drive-by trolling, H. Thanks for stopping by the OT for such a valuable contribution. No one said or implied that, so don't be ridiculous. Jihadin said he didn't see the difference between calling mocking Mitt as rich and out of touch, vs. mocking Obama as being a shaman with a bone through his nose. That's ignoring obvious and real racism.
Obama being black doesn't make him immune to caricature and humor. I think that you and many others are quick to jump up and call racism in defense of Obama. It's a prejudice of your own to find offense where none exists.
It's called cultural sensitivity. If you don't know about the cultural and historical racism between that picture then there is nothing I can do. But there is a difference between pointing out that Bush looks like a chimp, and a historical fact that monkeys were used as a caricature by racists to point out that blacks are sub-humans and nothing more than apes and wild animals.
752
Post by: Polonius
It cuts both ways, of course. A cartoon showing Obama with a big nose, counting money isn't particularly offensive. The same thing with Joe Lieberman would be.
Just becaue there is no shortage of fiegned offense does not meant that some things aren't actually offensive.
29110
Post by: AustonT
 d-usa wrote: AustonT wrote: Mannahnin wrote:HBMC wrote:Jihadin wrote:Almost though for moment if I didn't vote for Obama I'm a racist.
Don't worry. It doesn't need to say that. It's implied.
Nice drive-by trolling, H. Thanks for stopping by the OT for such a valuable contribution. No one said or implied that, so don't be ridiculous. Jihadin said he didn't see the difference between calling mocking Mitt as rich and out of touch, vs. mocking Obama as being a shaman with a bone through his nose. That's ignoring obvious and real racism.
Obama being black doesn't make him immune to caricature and humor. I think that you and many others are quick to jump up and call racism in defense of Obama. It's a prejudice of your own to find offense where none exists.
It's called cultural sensitivity. If you don't know about the cultural and historical racism between that picture then there is nothing I can do. But there is a difference between pointing out that Bush looks like a chimp, and a historical fact that monkeys were used as a caricature by racists to point out that blacks are sub-humans and nothing more than apes and wild animals.
Really you want to pretend its about historical racism? You are welcome to it, its a stretch to find offense. Like the hung chair. That must be racist, but this guy; he's cool.
Because it's only racist when it's Obama right? The are almost literally countless examples of the inconsistency between what is suddenly "Racist" with Obama that was just legitimate expression before. The only racism is what your own prejudices read into it.
752
Post by: Polonius
Well, I guess it was possible for there to be racism against Bush, but I can't think of anybody that hated him because he was white. No doubt they existed, just pretty far from the mainstream. The are almost literally countless examples of the inconsistency between what is suddenly "Racist" with Obama that was just legitimate expression before. The only racism is what your own prejudices read into it.
What you probably mean is that there are things that are offensive now, that weren't before. It's really, really hard to show that a white guy is racist against another white guy, which is the paradigm for nearly all presidential satire prior to 2008. I think when big chunks of the American people doubt that Obama was born in the US, or is a Christian, and he happens to be black, it's reasonable to assume that some of the satire is tinged with racism. Even if not, though, you should be able to understand that some things are more offensive than others. You can do them, nobody is banning anything. I think you're going to have a hard time explaining to people that are offended, "you're prejudiced here" rather than trying to understand why tehy are offended. The common response here is that it's unfair for a person to be judged based on stereotypes. Not all right wingers are racists, why should a person that is mocking Obama be painted with that brush. I agree that it's not fair. I'm usually not offended by much, and I try to see the actual intent and motivation behind an act. The flip side is that unlike many other presidents, Obama has to watch his actions very, very closely. America isn't nearly as racist as we were 50 years ago. I mean, we elected a black guy president, and if anything his detractors tagged him as "elitist!" Still, it's been documented that he has to be careful not to appear as "the angry black man," because while americans are ok with cuddly, cool black guys, we tighten up around black male anger.
241
Post by: Ahtman
There are pictures of Obama as Hitler as well, and no one is calling those racist, just stupid, just as most reasonable people called making Bush Hitler was stupid as well. They aren't really analogous to the problem either, as part of the issues is that there really is no apt comparison. There is no real historical or cultural word for white people with the same power and hatred as [Forum Rules]. Calling a white guy a monkey doesn't have the same context or history as calling a black man a monkey.
Saying someone is rich and out of touch is not like saying someone is a sub-human and prone to criminal behavior due to their ethnicity.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Some people seem to confuse making fun of Obama as being racist. It's not racist to make fun of him, or make jokes about him.
It's racist to be racist.
This is not racist either, same as with Bush.
29194
Post by: Luco
Mannahnin wrote:HBMC wrote:Jihadin wrote:Almost though for moment if I didn't vote for Obama I'm a racist.
Don't worry. It doesn't need to say that. It's implied.
Nice drive-by trolling, H. Thanks for stopping by the OT for such a valuable contribution. No one said or implied that, so don't be ridiculous. Jihadin said he didn't see the difference between calling mocking Mitt as rich and out of touch, vs. mocking Obama as being a shaman with a bone through his nose. That's ignoring obvious and real racism.
Luco wrote: Polonius wrote:To celebrate being "white" isn't a celebration of a culture. It's a celebration of a stranglehold on power.
I'm sure I'm misreading your point, do explain? What is wrong with celebrating and studying the cultures of Europe, ancient to present, and her diaspora?
He clearly explained it. Being "white" is not a culture. Being of Irish descent, or Swedish descent, or Italian descent, or Ashkenazi descent; those are cultural heritages.
Would it be more appropriate to say White American culture? there's not a ton to distinguish say a predominantly Irish-American family like mine to the predominantly Italian-American family down the street.
34390
Post by: whembly
How we celebrate being an "American"?
Or "British"?
Or "Australian"?
Sometime I think we create our own problems...
752
Post by: Polonius
Luco wrote: Would it be more appropriate to say White American culture? there's not a ton to distinguish say a predominantly Irish-American family like mine to the predominantly Italian-American family down the street.
If you have a hard time distinguishing between Italian-americans, and Irish-Americans, I'm not sure you're horribly interested in celebrating European culture. I'm not sure how celebrating "white American" culture will differ in any meaningful way from any other celebration of American culture. I mean, this is the point. Look at major US holidays. One celebrates the birth of a Jew, one civic holidy celebrates the birth of a black civil rights leader. The rest are pretty focused on the achievements of White people. Most notably the 4th, where all the principles where white guys. Veterans and Memorial Day are theoretically color blind, and I'm really not sure white veterans or war dead get shortchanged. The Labor movement was nearly all white. The presidents from president's day: white. Thanksgiving is about white pilgrims. St. Patrick's day is about drunk white people. Halloween is a very european holiday.
34390
Post by: whembly
How 'bout this?
5534
Post by: dogma
The best part of this is that its from LaRouche, which means it probably centers on Obama's inaction with respect to some environmental conspiracies. Automatically Appended Next Post: Luco wrote:
Would it be more appropriate to say White American culture? there's not a ton to distinguish say a predominantly Irish-American family like mine to the predominantly Italian-American family down the street.
There isn't a ton to distinguish my exceedingly white family from a black family of equivalent income either, at least if you discount skin tone.
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
Or "British"?
By drinking tea and crumpets with a British accent while wearing a monocle and top hat Wot Wot! Or celebrating Horatio, Watterloo, Queen Elizabeth the First, Robin Hood, Richard the Lionheart, being a monarchist, fondly viewing the Pax Brittania of yesteryear, arguing over liverpool and manchester, umbrellas, spelling things with ou instead of the lazy o... All kinds of stuff really. But at it's core you have to be from the British Isles at some point in your history. Generally recent, though that occasionally differs depending on your current nation of residence. Heck my family on my dad's side is from the English refuge of Westmount in Quebec, who see it as a manner of pride not to know anything about French popular culture and our occasional luncheons with the Queen. Forgot to mention that we've been here for over 250 years and we're still as english as the dickens.
34390
Post by: whembly
 Ratbarf wrote:Or "British"?
By drinking tea and crumpets with a British accent while wearing a monocle and top hat Wot Wot!
Or celebrating Horatio, Watterloo, Queen Elizabeth the First, Robin Hood, Richard the Lionheart, being a monarchist, fondly viewing the Pax Brittania of yesteryear, arguing over liverpool and manchester, umbrellas, spelling things with ou instead of the lazy o... All kinds of stuff really. But at it's core you have to be from the British Isles at some point in your history. Generally recent, though that occasionally differs depending on your current nation of residence. Heck my family on my dad's side is from the English refuge of Westmount in Quebec, who see it as a manner of pride not to know anything about French popular culture and our occasional luncheons with the Queen.
Forgot to mention that we've been here for over 250 years and we're still as english as the dickens.
Dat wuz funnys.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
It's not difficult.
Calling Obama Hitler = stupid, not automatically racist.
Calling Obama a socialist = not racist.
Calling Obama a liar = not racist.
Calling Obama a monkey = racist.
Portraying Obama as an African witch doctor with a bone through his nose = racist.
Putting the following image in your newsletter, like the Chaffey Community Republican Women did - real fething racist.
You can't just pretend this stuff is equivalent to mocking Mitt for being rich and out of touch. Well, you can, but if you do it becomes obvious that you've got your head firmly planted in the sand.
752
Post by: Polonius
Ironically, my coworkers and I at Social Security refer to our salaries in general, and any overtime in specific, as "Obama dollars." Then we found out that we were all hired out of stimulus money, and the joke got even funnier.
29194
Post by: Luco
Polonius wrote: Luco wrote:
Would it be more appropriate to say White American culture? there's not a ton to distinguish say a predominantly Irish-American family like mine to the predominantly Italian-American family down the street.
If you have a hard time distinguishing between Italian-americans, and Irish-Americans, I'm not sure you're horribly interested in celebrating European culture.
I'm not sure how celebrating "white American" culture will differ in any meaningful way from any other celebration of American culture.
I mean, this is the point. Look at major US holidays. One celebrates the birth of a Jew, one civic holidy celebrates the birth of a black civil rights leader. The rest are pretty focused on the achievements of White people. Most notably the 4th, where all the principles where white guys. Veterans and Memorial Day are theoretically color blind, and I'm really not sure white veterans or war dead get shortchanged. The Labor movement was nearly all white. The presidents from president's day: white. Thanksgiving is about white pilgrims. St. Patrick's day is about drunk white people. Halloween is a very european holiday.
In the modern day and age there is very little difference. There were worlds of difference when both groups were new to the place, but now? Its roughly the same. There are no white ethnic neighborhoods here at any rate, maybe in the northeast or something. I'm probably mixed up at this point, but you can't celebrate white culture because its the celebration of having a stranglehold on power, yet we do it all the time but can't acknowledge them as white cultural celebrations?
241
Post by: Ahtman
I'm ostensibly a white guy and I can't imagining celebrating something as diffuse and generic as 'white culture'. The few defining factors aren't really enough to get worked up about, and much of the history even within the groups culled together under the banner don't always have that much of a shared history, and some of them are even antagonistic.
5534
Post by: dogma
Luco wrote:I'm probably mixed up at this point, but you can't celebrate white culture because its the celebration of having a stranglehold on power, yet we do it all the time but can't acknowledge them as white cultural celebrations?
Two things:
1: White culture only "exists" because of the existence of black culture. Polonius touched on this before, but white culture is a thing only because it excludes that which is black and further deals with only that which is powerful.
2: We do celebrate it all the time, but calling it white basically marginalizes black people even more than the holidays already do. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ahtman wrote:I'm ostensibly a white guy and I can't imagining celebrating something as diffuse and generic as 'white culture'. The few defining factors aren't really enough to get worked up about, and much of the history even within the groups culled together under the banner don't always have that much of a shared history, and some of them are even antagonistic.
I'm still waiting for that day when Americans start calling themselves "American" without a modifier, we're getting there but there is the requisite struggle.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
I'm still not seeing how white people in general can be said to have a shared culture. Americans have a good deal of shared culture, and most of it is still predominantly made by and centered on white people, but that's not the same thing as a "white culture". I wouldn't want Presidents' Day or Independence Day to be thought of as white holidays, even if white people started them. They should be inclusive of all Americans.
White only really means anything in the sense of differentiating a person from darker people. In terms of cultural heritage, my Irish and Swedish ancestors didn't have much in common with Hungarians, or Russians, say.
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
I'm ostensibly a white guy and I can't imagining celebrating something as diffuse and generic as 'white culture'. The few defining factors aren't really enough to get worked up about, and much of the history even within the groups culled together under the banner don't always have that much of a shared history, and some of them are even antagonistic.
Ever gone to St. Patricks day? How about carnivale, the non-carribean one, gay pride parades, Oktoberfest, Thanksgiving, Halloween, pretty much all country music, womens suffrage, yodelling, hunting with semi-automatic weapons, dogs beleive it or not, and a penchant for the Winter Olympics. All of those things are relatively either white only, vast white majority, or white in its origins. The fact that said activities are open to pretty much all whites regardless of specific national heritage means they fall under white culture. EG; nobody gives a darn if you aren't Irish and celebrate St. Patrick's Day.
5534
Post by: dogma
Ratbarf wrote:EG; nobody gives a darn if you aren't Irish and celebrate St. Patrick's Day.
Or black, for that matter.
Also, real Irish people do get pissed about it.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Irish heritage, not race based.
How about carnivale, the non-carribean one,
Religious heritage, not race based.
gay pride parades,
The black gays would like a word with you.
Oktoberfest,
German heritage, not race based.
Thanksgiving,
Not race based.
Halloween
Religious holiday, not race based
pretty much all country music,
I give you that one
womens suffrage,
Black women who fight to vote want a word with you.
yodelling,
Cultural heritage, not race based
hunting with semi-automatic weapons
Possibly, but it's fun
dogs beleive it or not,
lol what?
and a penchant for the Winter Olympics.
But again, nationality based, nothing to do with race.
All of those things are relatively either white only, vast white majority, or white in its origins.
If they are white it is not because they are events for white people, they are based on national origin or religious traditions, not race based traditions.
The fact that said activities are open to pretty much all whites regardless of specific national heritage means they fall under white culture. EG; nobody gives a darn if you aren't Irish and celebrate St. Patrick's Day.
Unless these events kick out black folks trying to drink green beer, eat brats, go trick & treating, whatever they are not "white culture". Nobody gives a darn if you are black and want to celebrate St. Patrick's Day. Nobody cares if you are white and want to get drunk on May 5th either.
Stupid argument is stupid.
15594
Post by: Albatross
dogma wrote: Ratbarf wrote:EG; nobody gives a darn if you aren't Irish and celebrate St. Patrick's Day.
Or black, for that matter.
Also, real Irish people do get pissed about it.
Yes, I can testify to that. I'm only half Irish and... Well, it doesn't annoy me as such, but it is rather pathetic. No-one with any real links to the place bangs on about how 'oirish' they are. I've never even been to a St. Patrick's day party in my life, and my sister was born where the fether's buried!
5580
Post by: Eidolon
d-usa wrote:Black people not voting for the guy whose party is trying to make it harder for black people to vote and implies that they are all on welfare?
Clearly racist.
But welcome to the "if we made a white people club we are racist, but the NAACP is okay?" club.
This is basically what I feel about it too, but I just watched Malcolm X with a black muslim friend, so maybe im a traitor to the cause.
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
lol what?
Dog breeding is a vastly white thing. Not too many minorities into as far as I'm aware aside from Selukies.
As to heritage based, I would say that qualifies, as what is African Americanism but a celebration of shared heritage collated from a variety of different african nations.
What's on the 5th of May?
Black women who fight to vote want a word with you.
That goes more under the civil rights movement. Women had the suffrage before negros I think. Automatically Appended Next Post: Religious heritage, not race based.
The ethnic nation of the Quebecois would like a word with you.
5580
Post by: Eidolon
Ratbarf wrote:
Black women who fight to vote want a word with you.
That goes more under the civil rights movement. Women had the suffrage before negros I think.
Negros, LOL
44290
Post by: LoneLictor
The maturity level of this thread is astounding.
Normally I'm against making spiteful, sarcastic comments like this, but I'll make an exception for this thread.
29194
Post by: Luco
Mannahnin wrote:I'm still not seeing how white people in general can be said to have a shared culture.
By that argument isn't there a lack of black culture as well or Is there a shared culture between Jamaicans and say, those from Botswana?
241
Post by: Ahtman
Luco wrote: Mannahnin wrote:I'm still not seeing how white people in general can be said to have a shared culture.
By that argument isn't there a lack of black culture as well or Is there a shared culture between Jamaicans and say, those from Botswana?
It is like thinking that White Power and Black Power must mean the same thing because they are similar words, yet they actually mean very different things. White Culture and Black Culture are also actually very different meanings, they just sound similar. Black Culture usually denotes that of the people that are descendants of slaves, not recent immigrants that happen to have dark skin. There is some crossover though, as Jamaicans will often run into racism just as much as another person of African decent in the USA. There is a much greater sense of shared history and struggle for acceptance, though it helps when you are a smaller group to be able to relate to each other in a broad way. For instance, white soldiers returning from WWI weren't killed in such record numbers by their own countrymen that a name was given for that post War summer. Black soldiers returning home on the other hand were, and we got the Red Summer.
23
Post by: djones520
dogma wrote: White culture only "exists" because of the existence of black culture. Polonius touched on this before, but white culture is a thing only because it excludes that which is black and further deals with only that which is powerful.
This is a two way street though. Celebrating "black culture" only leads to highlight differances and doesn't do anything to close the gap. The arguments about unified culture stand up just as well. I have just about as much relation to my old world culture as any black people do. But saying I cannot celebrate a unified culture because of how seperate all those european ones are, and then turning around and saying they can is a joke. African cultures back then, and today, are just as widely varied as european ones.
I look at it this way, I'm white, and I celebrate my culture. Not white culture, but American culture. I'm an American. I'm not a Scottish-American, European-American, or even Caucasian-American. I'm just American. These divides aren't going to close themselves until all parties begin to look at themselves the same way. Stop identifying yourself as African-American, Phillipino-American, Latin-American, etc...
A question for our British members. Do folks of African and Indian descent in your country label themselves as such? Or are they just "British"? I've never heard the term African-British used before, so I'm curious.
7926
Post by: youbedead
Black culture is not the culture of of the old world culture or African culture. It comes from the slave culture, which was a mixture of old world religious traditions mixed heavily with southern baptism, plus a bit of french thrown in. To confuse american black slave culture with african culture is to show a deep ignorance of american history
5394
Post by: reds8n
Some do , some don't.
Situation in the UK is a bit different owing to the time scales involved of course.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18903391
The reign of Elizabeth I saw the beginning of Britain's first black community. It's a fascinating story for modern Britons, writes historian Michael Wood.
Walk out of Aldgate Tube and stroll around Whitechapel Road in east London today, and you'll experience the heady sights, smells and sounds of the temples, mosques and curry houses of Brick Lane - so typical of modern multicultural Britain.
Most of us tend to think that black people came to Britain after the war - Caribbeans on the Empire Windrush in 1948, Bangladeshis after the 1971 war and Ugandan Asians after Idi Amin's expulsion in 1972.
But, back in Shakespeare's day, you could have met people from west Africa and even Bengal in the same London streets.
Of course, there were fewer, and they drew antipathy as well as fascination from the Tudor inhabitants, who had never seen black people before. But we know they lived, worked and intermarried, so it is fair to say that Britain's first black community starts here.
There had been black people in Britain in Roman times, and they are found as musicians in the early Tudor period in England and Scotland.
But the real change came in Elizabeth I's reign, when, through the records, we can pick up ordinary, working, black people, especially in London.
Shakespeare himself, a man fascinated by "the other", wrote several black parts - indeed, two of his greatest characters are black - and the fact that he put them into mainstream entertainment reflects the fact that they were a significant element in the population of London.
Employed especially as domestic servants, but also as musicians, dancers and entertainers, their numbers ran to many hundreds, maybe even more.
And let's be clear - they were not slaves. In English law, it was not possible to be a slave in England (although that principle had to be re-stated in slave trade court cases in the late 18th Century, like the "Somersett" case of 1772).
In Elizabeth's reign, the black people of London were mostly free. Some indeed, both men and women, married native English people.
In 1599, for example, in St Olave Hart Street, John Cathman married Constantia "a black woman and servant". A bit later, James Curres, "a moore Christian", married Margaret Person, a maid.
The parish records of this time from "St Botolph's outside Aldgate", are especially revealing. Here, among French and Dutch immigrants, are a Persian, several Indians and one "East Indian" (from today's Bengal).
In this single small parish, we find 25 black people in the later 16th Century. They are mainly servants, but not all - one man lodging at the White Bell, next to the Bell Foundry off Whitechapel road, probably worked at the foundry.
Some were given costly, high status, Christian funerals, with bearers and fine black cloth, a mark of the esteem in which they were held by employers, neighbours and fellow workers.
Among the names are these:
Christopher Cappervert [ie from Cape Verde] - "a blacke moore"
Domingo - "a black neigro servaunt unto Sir William Winter"
Suzanna Peavis - "a blackamore servant to John Deppinois"
Symon Valencia - "a black moore servaunt to Stephen Drifyeld a nedellmaker"
Cassango - "a blackmoore servaunt to Mr Thomas Barber a marchaunt"
Isabell Peeters - "a Black-more lodgeing in Blew Anchor Alley"
"A negar whose name was suposed to be Frauncis. He was servant to be [sic] Peter Miller a beare brewer dwelling at the signe of the hartes horne in the libertie of EastSmithfield. Yeares xxvi [26]. He had the best cloth [and] iiii [4] bearers"
Among later names, we find:
Anne Vause - "a Black-more wife to Anthonie Vause, Trompetter"
John Comequicke - "a Black-Moore so named, servant to Thomas Love a Captaine"
And, the saddest in this list:
Marie - "a Blackamoor woman that die in the street"
Sometimes the detail in the Botolph's register is absolutely fascinating.
In 1597, for example, Mary Fillis, a black woman of 20 years, had, for a long while, been the servant of Widow Barker in Mark Lane. She had been in England 13 or 14 years, and was the daughter of a Moorish shovel maker and basket maker. Never christened, she became the servant of Millicent Porter, a seamstress living in East Smithfield, and now "taking some howld of faith in Jesus Chryst, was desyrous to becom a Christian, Wherefore shee made sute by hir said mistres to have some conference with the Curat".
Examined in her faith by the vicar of St Botolph's, and "answering him verie Christian lyke", she did her catechisms, said the Lord's Prayer, and was baptised on Friday 3 June 1597 in front of the congregation. Among her witnesses were a group of five women, mostly wives of leading parishioners. Now a "lyvely member" of the church in Aldgate, there is no question from this description that Mary belonged to a community with friends and supporters.
Despite the story of Fillis, the lives of others were far from sweetness and light, of course. The lives of some black people were as free as anywhere in the white European world, but, for many, things were circumscribed and very hard.
Some black women worked alongside their white counterparts as prostitutes, especially in Southwark, and in the brothel area of Turnmill Street in Clerkenwell. Here the famous Lucy Negro, a former dancer in the Queen's service, ran an establishment patronised by noblemen and lawyers. Lucy was famous enough to be paid mock homage in the Inns of Court revels at Gray's Inn.
Her area of London was notorious. "Pray enquire after and secure my negress: she is certainly at The Swan, a Dane's beershop in Turnmil Street," wrote one Denis Edwards in 1602. Shakespeare's acquaintance, the poet John Weaver, also sang the praises of a woman whose face was "pure black as Ebonie, jet blacke".
In around 1600, the presence of black people had become an issue for the English government. Their numbers recently increased by many slaves freed from captured Spanish ships, the presence of black people suddenly came to be seen as a nuisance. In 1601, among the Cecil papers still held at Hatfield House, we hear this:
"The queen is discontented at the great numbers of 'negars and blackamoores' which are crept into the realm since the troubles between her Highness and the King of Spain, and are fostered here to the annoyance of her own people."
The "great numbers" were mainly galley slaves and servants from captured Spanish vessels, and a plan was mooted to transport them out of the country. Was this the first example of government repatriation? In July 1602, Cecil was putting pressure on the merchants, one of whom wrote:
"I have persuaded the merchants trading to Barbary, not without some difficulty, to yield to [ie pay for] the charges of the Moors lately redeemed out of servitude by her Majesty's ships, so far as it may concern their lodging and victuals, till some shipping may be ready to carry them into Barbary…"
Whether this actually happened is unclear. No more then than now, should we take a government's pronouncements on such matters at face value?
But it is at least worth noting that the authorities felt duty-bound to look after food and lodging while the freed slaves were in London. But it cannot be, as is sometimes claimed today, that this edict applied to the many black people who, like Mary Fillis, were living as citizens in London, as they were in Bristol.
Brief as they are, such hints suggest a surprisingly rich hidden narrative for black people in Elizabethan England.
From Lucy Negro to Mary Fillis, their numbers grew in the 17th Century as they were joined by large numbers of people from India and, in particular, Bengal.
Sadly, their own story, in their own words, is lacking, but by the time we reach the 18th Century, we have the remarkable works of prose, poetry and music written by black Britons, among whom the likes of Olaudah Equiano, Ottobah Cugoano and Ignatius Sancho deserve their place in any list of Great Britons.
By the 18th Century, it is thought as many as 20,000 black servants lived in London. They even had their own taverns where they greeted defeat of the "Somersett case" and the victories of the abolitionists with raucous good humour.
Their numbers were still small compared with the population as a whole, but they already had a role in our national story. What would Mary Fillis make of things today I wonder? And what would we give for her story?
23
Post by: djones520
Those of Indian descent though? The split between your two countries was much more recent then the cut off of our slave trade, and even slavery, but it's still the PC thing to refer to folks as African-American even though it's been more then 200 years since we stopped taking people from Africa.
241
Post by: Ahtman
djones520 wrote:Those of Indian descent though? The split between your two countries was much more recent then the cut off of our slave trade, and even slavery, but it's still the PC thing to refer to folks as African-American even though it's been more then 200 years since we stopped taking people from Africa.
Yes, because as we all know, when they stopped selling new slaves in the US was when suddenly Black people were considered equals in every way, with full access to all parts of American society.
While we are on the subject, did you know that it hasn't been 200 years since slavery was made illegal in the US? If we count the pseudo-slavery of Jim Crowe, it has been even less time.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
They are called African-American because people are squeamish to say "black" or "coloured".
Note that the white majority does not call itself European-American.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
I would politely disagree. I call them African Americans---as an 'African American' is different than an 'African'--of course, I might be the odd man out here--as I do not buy into the "race is a social construct" thought of the day either.
35160
Post by: punkow
This thread is hilarious...
15594
Post by: Albatross
Really interesting article reds8n, thanks for posting. For my part I've never really heard non-white Britons refer to themselves in terms of their ethnicity except for when it is specifically a topic of conversation, with the possible exception of those in the Asian community. British-Asian is a thing, I guess.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
AgeOfEgos wrote:I would politely disagree. I call them African Americans---as an 'African American' is different than an 'African'--of course, I might be the odd man out here--as I do not buy into the "race is a social construct" thought of the day either.
Do you call white citizens "European-Americans"?
Surely everyone who is a citizen of the USA is an American, regardless of their colour of skin?
"African-Americans" whose families have been in the US for two hundred years are no more African than I am, except as defined by the colour of their skin.
Conversely there are recent immigrants to the US, from Somalia, Egypt and Nigeria, who are all African and have no more in common with each other culturally or racially than a French Canadian and a Nahuatl Mexican.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
"African American" and "black" are typically the courteous terms used in reference to people of that ancestry, in the US. If talking about African American culture or black culture, that can refer to a couple of things. One is the traditions and shared experience of blacks in America, mostly descended from slaves. Things like the religious culture, cuisine, naming practices, etc. It can also refer to the popular culture centered around black people is a more amorphous thing, relating to music and fashion and marketing, and of course marketers try to broaden the appeal to as wide an audience as they can.
Specific subgroups of white people in the US are sometimes referred to or refer to themselves in relation to their ethnic/national background, such as Irish-Americans, Franco-Americans, Italian-Americans, etc. Mostly in cases where people still identify with a cultural group. Boston or Brooklyn Irish-Americans, New York or New Jersey Italian-Americans, Franco-Americans in NH and Vermont (and probably other states bordering Canada, but I don't have firsthand experience with them), are descended from large waves of immigrants who maintained some cultural traditions and practices and primarily intermarried within the group, to some extent that being true even to this day. Jersey Shore is perhaps nothing to be proud of, but gives a pop culture example of a particular youth culture of Italian-Americans. I don't know personally whether people of Scandinavian descent in the upper midwest (which had tons of Swedish and Norwegian immigrants) use the terms Swedish-American or Norwegian-American, but I think they may.
9217
Post by: KingCracker
 Kilkrazy wrote: AgeOfEgos wrote:I would politely disagree. I call them African Americans---as an 'African American' is different than an 'African'--of course, I might be the odd man out here--as I do not buy into the "race is a social construct" thought of the day either.
Do you call white citizens "European-Americans"?
Surely everyone who is a citizen of the USA is an American, regardless of their colour of skin?
"African-Americans" whose families have been in the US for two hundred years are no more African than I am, except as defined by the colour of their skin.
Conversely there are recent immigrants to the US, from Somalia, Egypt and Nigeria, who are all African and have no more in common with each other culturally or racially than a French Canadian and a Nahuatl Mexican.
This is my outlook on it. As my brother the Giant always said "There isnt an Afircan American Crayon in that box is there? No?!? Ok so they are black then" Too true
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
Kilkrazy wrote: Surely everyone who is a citizen of the USA is an American, regardless of their colour of skin? "African-Americans" whose families have been in the US for two hundred years are no more African than I am, except as defined by the colour of their skin. Conversely there are recent immigrants to the US, from Somalia, Egypt and Nigeria, who are all African and have no more in common with each other culturally or racially than a French Canadian and a Nahuatl Mexican.
Oh yes KK, without a doubt we are all "Americans" under a cultural lens. I should have probably clarified my stance a bit more--but was posting from my phone so it was laziness induced brevity . African Americans in the United States are certainly more African than you are--provided you do not have a significant African American ancestry in your recent past. African Americans have a very specific genotype that is unique with their mixture of Europen/African descent. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/05/genetic-variation-among-african-americans/ It's true that classifications are something we (as a species) designed--but as a group identifier of alleles that share characteristics, it's valid. Culturally and socially, group DNA differences (call it race, groups, whatever) will always be an issue--until we sufficiently intermingle enough that the biological variety becomes muddied enough--it is no longer socially or culturally relevant. Maybe that will never happen? I hope so. It's certainly a land mine socially to discuss it--even the Human Genome Project had to tiptoe (stating race as a social construct was socially constructed and there were no species within humans--yet we do have group differences). Carefully worded-- hah I bet  . Personally, I actually think categorizing Africans and African Americans as "black" is more racist then pointing out the genetic differences between Africans, African Americans and Europeans and using such labels. I think it's important to note this for a couple of reasons. One, to ignore the biological basis of race is to do a discredit to races that would respond to specific medical treatments. Africans and African Americans are more predisposed to diabetes, hypertension and sickle cell disease. This is tied to a genome that also happens to increase melatonin as well---so we can't simply dismiss the race as a social construct and move on. That's unfair to African and African Americans that may need more preemptive care in those areas--and respond to certain medications more favorably ( IIRC African Americans respond more favorably to Betablockers instead of ACE as an example). And the other reason is--if we try to dismiss race as purely social construct to counter racists--well, as I noted above-1 we are wrong--and 2-- IMHO--that's not the argument we should be using against idiotic racists. The argument I would make is that while genetics/race may predispose us to certain diseases (and yes--perhaps even certain behaviors)-we judge people by their action, not what they statistically may fall under. Racists are idiots and deserve scorn for their idiocy--I just want to make sure we scorn them for the right reasons. An interesting read on it; http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/ogandy/C45405%20resources/McCann%20race%20human%20genome.pdf
44290
Post by: LoneLictor
I never really thought about the term 'Black' versus the term 'African American'. I guess I always say black for two reasons.
1) I was referred to as white person, not an Anglo Saxton American or whatever the intellectual term for crackers is.
2) Not all black people are African Americans. If I was from Jamaica, I'd probably get annoyed by being called an African American.
241
Post by: Ahtman
People choose to be called what they want, and doing so is a sign of respect and understanding. Some people prefer to be referred to as black, some as African-American. Some prefer to be called white, others Franco-American. It is a personal identification issues, and often, especially from non-minorities, it is a cause of consternation, because it would just be easier if the smaller groups would just conform to the larger groups norms and labels. Of course it never really works like that. Indian, Native American, First Nation, Indigenous, Cherokee.
Another problem with 'White Culture' is that it radically changes over time to envelop different groups. Mediterranean groups (Greek, Italian) were not classified as white in the US for for more time than they have been. A white woman was arrested for miscegenation until it was found out that she was of Italian descent, at which point she was let go because the law forbid white people to marry black people, and Italians weren't white. Of course lets not forget 'No Dogs or Irish", either. Jews are now typically considered 'white', unless someone knows they are Jewish, which then colors their view, but most don't think to much on it. Asians are sort of an odd man out in that they are both treated as white, yet often still outsiders.
Anglo Saxon isn't an intellectual term for anything, it is a descriptor of people of descent from the Anglo Saxon groups. It is just old world X-Y, such as African- American.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Mannahnin wrote:I'm still not seeing how white people in general can be said to have a shared culture.
They don't. Absent skin color white people (esp Americans) are perfectly willing to segregate white people into cultural/racial groups to discriminate against them.
LoneLictor wrote:I never really thought about the term 'Black' versus the term 'African American'. I guess I always say black for two reasons.
I don't use hyphenations at all, something something Teddy Roosevelt.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
Ahtman wrote: Asians are sort of an odd man out in that they are both treated as white, yet often still outsiders.
I don't get this part. 
241
Post by: Ahtman
 Cheesecat wrote: Ahtman wrote: Asians are sort of an odd man out in that they are both treated as white, yet often still outsiders.
I don't get this part.
You have to remember that there are books written on the subject, so any attempt to encapsulate in just a brief period will not cover every facet of a discussion. Essentially, a 'white' person is worried about if an Asian family moves in next door than they are latinos or blacks. Asians are seen as sharing more 'white values' such as focus on education and professional aspirations. We aren't talking about reality, but perception, but one that effects property values and levels of discrimination. Yet, there is still a sense of otherness that is still projected. There is also still a stigma of excoticism, especially among Asian women. It sort of straddles the gap of being included and excluded simultaneously.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
Ahtman wrote: Cheesecat wrote: Ahtman wrote: Asians are sort of an odd man out in that they are both treated as white, yet often still outsiders.
I don't get this part.
You have to remember that there are books written on the subject, so any attempt to encapsulate in just a brief period will not cover every facet of a discussion. Essentially, a 'white' person is worried about if an Asian family moves in next door than they are latinos or blacks. Asians are seen as sharing more 'white values' such as focus on education and professional aspirations. We aren't talking about reality, but perception, but one that effects property values and levels of discrimination. Yet, there is still a sense of otherness that is still projected. There is also still a stigma of excoticism, especially among Asian women. It sort of straddles the gap of being included and excluded simultaneously.
OK that clarifies things, thanks.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Albatross wrote: dogma wrote: Ratbarf wrote:EG; nobody gives a darn if you aren't Irish and celebrate St. Patrick's Day.
Or black, for that matter.
Also, real Irish people do get pissed about it.
Yes, I can testify to that. I'm only half Irish and... Well, it doesn't annoy me as such, but it is rather pathetic. No-one with any real links to the place bangs on about how 'oirish' they are. I've never even been to a St. Patrick's day party in my life, and my sister was born where the fether's buried!
St. Patrick's Day used to be good, but Cinco de Mayo has frankly kicked its ass in the last decade or so.
Frazzled view of the difference:
St. Patty's Day:
cheap beer
elementary school: "wear green or you get a pinch." "pinch me and I will skin you."
now: 'wear green or you get a pinch." "Pinch me and I will shoot, sue and skin you, not necessarily in that order."
Cinco de Mayo:
Queso! Fajitas! Tequila!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ratbarf wrote:lol what?
Dog breeding is a vastly white thing. Not too many minorities into as far as I'm aware aside from Selukies.
Yes, I forgot how the Germans bred chows, akitas, and huskeys.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Shih-tzus, Afghan hounds, Shar-Pei...
5580
Post by: Eidolon
Given my vast knowledge of racial stereotypes, the fact that dog breeding was even brought up is shocking to me.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Pekinese, and those little rat dogs movie stars always have.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Frazzled wrote:
Pekinese, and those little rat dogs movie stars always have.
Chihuahas?
Also, Koreans breed dogs.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Frazzled wrote:
Pekinese, and those little rat dogs movie stars always have.
... agents ...?
221
Post by: Frazzled
There you go, chihuahuas. A chihuahua ran up to Rodney the shanker once. This usually results in Rodney going buzzsaw on them as he's eternally on DEFCON ONE around other dogs. He whined like it was some sort of alien and pinwheeled backwards "OHGODWHATAREYOU!!!!" Automatically Appended Next Post: No the other rat dogs...
9217
Post by: KingCracker
 Eidolon wrote:Given my vast knowledge of racial stereotypes, the fact that dog breeding was even brought up is shocking to me.
This is the Offtopic man, the fact that your shocked, shocks me
221
Post by: Frazzled
KingCracker wrote: Eidolon wrote:Given my vast knowledge of racial stereotypes, the fact that dog breeding was even brought up is shocking to me.
This is the Offtopic man, the fact that your shocked, shocks me
(Frazzled gets out the tazor and a big big smile)
Shocks for every one! ZZAP!
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Akita is a Japanese breed.
5470
Post by: sebster
Kilkrazy wrote:The Tea Party is the symptom of the fiscal and social conservatives noticing that the traditional Republicans did not deliver what they wanted.
Which, in a dose of truly delicious irony, was funded and co-opted by the corporate interests
34390
Post by: whembly
sebster wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:The Tea Party is the symptom of the fiscal and social conservatives noticing that the traditional Republicans did not deliver what they wanted.
Which, in a dose of truly delicious irony, was funded and co-opted by the corporate interests
Put.Down.The.Pipe.Man.
Or better yet... gimmie dat!
5470
Post by: sebster
Seaward wrote:I'm not as convinced. I think any large demographic voting in such a monolithic fashion should raise an eyebrow or two.
But they aren't voting in a monolithic fashion, most of them aren't voting at all. If they were really passionate about the Democrats you'd see participation rates roughly equal with other ethnic groups, but they're actually much lower.
So the actual observation is 'wow, absolutely no black people vote Republican.' Exactly why that is should raise a question or two. Instead conservatives just make some vague claims about racism. Automatically Appended Next Post: Luco wrote:I'm sure I'm misreading your point, do explain? What is wrong with celebrating and studying the cultures of Europe, ancient to present, and her diaspora?
Celebrating or studying a single culture within Europe is fine, and perfectly normal. Studying various European cultures but then stopping when you reach countries where the skin gets a little darker is more than a little weird. Automatically Appended Next Post: AustonT wrote:Because it's only racist when it's Obama right? The are almost literally countless examples of the inconsistency between what is suddenly "Racist" with Obama that was just legitimate expression before. The only racism is what your own prejudices read into it.
bs. It has nothing to with one's own prejudices and everything to do with knowing about the symbols of repression. Automatically Appended Next Post: whembly wrote:How we celebrate being an "American"?
Or "British"?
Or "Australian"?
Sometime I think we create our own problems...
We celebrate being Australian all the time. The British celebrate being British, and I know you Americans celebrate being American. I really don't know what you're getting at here.
34390
Post by: whembly
Okay... since this is sorta related...
What's the big deal? This isn't new info...
http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/02/obama-speech-jeremiah-wright-new-orleans
To be honest, I'd rather be talking about:
-Banghazi
-Obamacare
-Indemnifying Lockheed for political gain
-Fast&Furious
- Obama saying, "the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam"
5470
Post by: sebster
Albatross wrote:Yes, I can testify to that. I'm only half Irish and... Well, it doesn't annoy me as such, but it is rather pathetic. No-one with any real links to the place bangs on about how 'oirish' they are. I've never even been to a St. Patrick's day party in my life, and my sister was born where the fether's buried!
I don't think anything annoys me quite as much as people who've never been to Scotland or Ireland in their lives suddenly wearing a kilt for their wedding.
34390
Post by: whembly
sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote:How we celebrate being an "American"?
Or "British"?
Or "Australian"?
Sometime I think we create our own problems...
We celebrate being Australian all the time. The British celebrate being British, and I know you Americans celebrate being American. I really don't know what you're getting at here.
What I was getting at earlier was that everyone keeps trying to celebrate "Black" or "Irish"... which is fine, but I think sometime we forget what brings our country together.. We're all "American"... you in your case, you're "Austrailian" ( btw, forgive my ignorance... how do ya'll "down under" celebrate?)
5470
Post by: sebster
djones520 wrote:I look at it this way, I'm white, and I celebrate my culture. Not white culture, but American culture. I'm an American. I'm not a Scottish-American, European-American, or even Caucasian-American. I'm just American. These divides aren't going to close themselves until all parties begin to look at themselves the same way. Stop identifying yourself as African-American, Phillipino-American, Latin-American, etc...
Celebrating one's cultural heritage isn't exclusionary, and doesn't stop a person being part of a greater whole. A person can be proud to have Irish or Phillipino descent and still be just as much a part of American society as a person who thinks they have no strong cultural ties. The issue of divides are more to do with wealth disparity between ethnic groups, and exclusion from social groups based on ethnicity. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ahtman wrote:Yes, because as we all know, when they stopped selling new slaves in the US was when suddenly Black people were considered equals in every way, with full access to all parts of American society. While we are on the subject, did you know that it hasn't been 200 years since slavery was made illegal in the US? If we count the pseudo-slavery of Jim Crowe, it has been even less time.
When segregation existed within living memory, calls to get over it just look like straight up bs, don't they? Automatically Appended Next Post: Ahtman wrote:People choose to be called what they want, and doing so is a sign of respect and understanding. Some people prefer to be referred to as black, some as African-American. Some prefer to be called white, others Franco-American. It is a personal identification issues, and often, especially from non-minorities, it is a cause of consternation, because it would just be easier if the smaller groups would just conform to the larger groups norms and labels. Of course it never really works like that. Indian, Native American, First Nation, Indigenous, Cherokee. Another problem with 'White Culture' is that it radically changes over time to envelop different groups. Mediterranean groups (Greek, Italian) were not classified as white in the US for for more time than they have been. A white woman was arrested for miscegenation until it was found out that she was of Italian descent, at which point she was let go because the law forbid white people to marry black people, and Italians weren't white. Of course lets not forget 'No Dogs or Irish", either. Jews are now typically considered 'white', unless someone knows they are Jewish, which then colors their view, but most don't think to much on it. Asians are sort of an odd man out in that they are both treated as white, yet often still outsiders. Anglo Saxon isn't an intellectual term for anything, it is a descriptor of people of descent from the Anglo Saxon groups. It is just old world X-Y, such as African- American.
Yeah, this sums up the whole issue really well. 'White' is a constantly changing concept, adding new groups as they catch up in socio-economic class. Automatically Appended Next Post: whembly wrote:What I was getting at earlier was that everyone keeps trying to celebrate "Black" or "Irish"... which is fine, but I think sometime we forget what brings our country together..
Funnily enough, one of the unique parts of American culture is the need to be a hyphen American. It's much less common in the rest of the world. To the rest of us, needing to have a hyphen in your descriptor is such an American thing to do. We're all "American"... you in your case, you're "Austrailian" (btw, forgive my ignorance... how do ya'll "down under" celebrate?)
Sure, you're American. But you can also be Irish-American or Egyptian-American. The hyphen doesn't make you something different to an average American, it just describes, to some extent, your particular American experience. Automatically Appended Next Post: How do you deny it? By ignoring the Koch brothers funding, or by pretending the Koch brothers aren't part of corporate interests of the party?
5534
Post by: dogma
djones520 wrote:
This is a two way street though. Celebrating "black culture" only leads to highlight differances and doesn't do anything to close the gap.
There's nothing wrong with highlighting differences unless they are claimed to exceed that which is in common, at least if we're talking about a contiguous nation of people. Which we are, for the most part. You don't see many serious separatist movements in the US.
To phrase it differently, there is a common black experience to some degree in that there are particular conditions that only black people contend with. However, I can't think of any conditions which only white people contend with. Conversely, there is a difference between being black in Chicago and being black in Atlanta, but they both still have common experiences that are distinct from being white in either place.
djones520 wrote:
Stop identifying yourself as African-American, Phillipino-American, Latin-American, etc...
You'll notice that all of those identities include the word "American" in their names.
221
Post by: Frazzled
It screams Jesse Jackson racial padnering. However, don't worry, the MsM will ignore it.
But agreed. Lets talk actual record.
5534
Post by: dogma
So, the non-Conservative media will ignore a speech that's 5 years old and has already been covered ?
In fact, Tucker Carlson, editor-in-chief of The Daily Caller, discussed the speech in June 2007 on his MSNBC show.
221
Post by: Frazzled
dogma wrote:
So, the non-Conservative media will ignore a speech that's 5 years old and has already been covered ?
In fact, Tucker Carlson, editor-in-chief of The Daily Caller, discussed the speech in June 2007 on his MSNBC show.
The full speech was not covered, just an edited transcript. The actual speech is substantially more damning.
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:
The full speech was not covered, just an edited transcript. The actual speech is substantially more damning.
Here's the part everyone is calling damning:
“Down in New Orleans, where they still have not rebuilt 20 months later,” he begins, “there’s a law, federal law — when you get reconstruction money from the federal government — called the Stafford Act. And basically it says, when you get federal money, you have to give a 10 percent match. The local government’s has to come up with ten percent. Every 10 dollars the federal government comes up with, local government has to give a dollar.”
“Now here’s the thing: When 9-11 happened in New York City, they waived the Stafford Act — said, ‘This is too serious a problem. We can’t expect New York City to rebuild on its own. Forget that dollar you have to put in. Well, here’s 10 dollars.’ And that was the right thing to do. When Hurricane Andrew struck in Florida, people said, ‘Look at this devastation. We don’t expect you to come up with your own money here. Here’s the money to rebuild. We’re not going to wait for you to scratch it together, because you’re part of the American family.’”
"What's happening down in New Orleans? Where's your dollar? Where's your Stafford Act money?"
This is Drudge and his ilk engaging in muckraking, its what he does so whatever. The Twitter comments also indicate that he is trying to drive up site traffic, because all of the video transcripts have been available for years; he just hasn't put it on his own site as of yet.
I can respect a good muckrake, but this one is really, really lazy and terrible.
221
Post by: Frazzled
I'd posit these as well. Remember people I didn't bring this topic up.
“
Obama begins his address with “a special shout out” to Jeremiah Wright, the Chicago pastor who nearly derailed Obama’s campaign months later when his sermons attacking Israel and America and accusing the U.S. government of “inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color” became public. To the audience at Hampton, Obama describes Wright as, “my pastor, the guy who puts up with me, counsels me, listens to my wife complain about me. He’s a friend and a great leader. Not just in Chicago, but all across the country.”
By the time Obama appeared at Hampton, Jeremiah Wright had become a political problem. Wright told The New York Times earlier that year that he would no longer be speaking on the campaign’s behalf because his rhetoric was considered too militant. And yet later in the Hampton speech Obama explicitly defends Wright from unnamed critics, a group he describes as “they”: “They had stories about Trinity United Church of Christ, because we talked about black people in church: ‘Oh, that might be a separatist church,’” Obama said mockingly.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/02/obama-speech-jeremiah-wright-new-orleans/#ixzz28FCtRz00
And with that, Obama pivots to his central point: The Los Angeles riots and Hurricane Katrina have racism in common. “The federal response after Katrina was similar to the response we saw after the riots in LA,” he thunders from the podium. “People in Washington, they wake up, they’re surprised: ‘There’s poverty in our midst! Folks are frustrated! Black people angry!’ Then there’s gonna be some panels, and hearings, and there are commissions and there are reports, and then there’s some aid money, although we don’t always know where it’s going — it can’t seem to get to the people who need it — and nothin’ really changes, except the news coverage quiets down and Anderson Cooper is on to something else.”
It’s at about this point that Obama pauses, apparently agitated, and tells the crowd that he wants to give “one example because this really steams me up,” an example that he notes does not appear in his prepared remarks:
“Down in New Orleans, where they still have not rebuilt twenty months later,” he begins, “there’s a law, federal law — when you get reconstruction money from the federal government — called the Stafford Act. And basically it says, when you get federal money, you gotta give a ten percent match. The local government’s gotta come up with ten percent. Every ten dollars the federal government comes up with, local government’s gotta give a dollar.”
“Now here’s the thing,” Obama continues, “when 9-11 happened in New York City, they waived the Stafford Act — said, ‘This is too serious a problem. We can’t expect New York City to rebuild on its own. Forget that dollar you gotta put in. Well, here’s ten dollars.’ And that was the right thing to do. When Hurricane Andrew struck in Florida, people said, ‘Look at this devastation. We don’t expect you to come up with y’own money, here. Here’s the money to rebuild. We’re not gonna wait for you to scratch it together — because you’re part of the American family.’”
That’s not, Obama says, what is happening in majority-black New Orleans. “What’s happening down in New Orleans? Where’s your dollar? Where’s your Stafford Act money?” Obama shouts, angry now. “Makes no sense! Tells me that somehow, the people down in New Orleans they don’t care about as much!”
It’s a remarkable moment, and not just for its resemblance to Kayne West’s famous claim that “George Bush doesn’t care about black people,” but also because of its basic dishonesty. By January of 2007, six months before Obama’s Hampton speech, the federal government had sent at least $110 billion to areas damaged by Katrina. Compare this to the mere $20 billion that the Bush administration pledged to New York City after Sept. 11.
Moreover, the federal government did at times waive the Stafford Act during its reconstruction efforts. On May 25, 2007, just weeks before the speech, the Bush administration sent an additional $6.9 billion to Katrina-affected areas with no strings attached.
“America is going to survive. We won’t forget where we came from. We won’t forget what happened 19 months ago, 15 years ago, thousands of years ago.”
That’s not what he actually said. Before the audience at Hampton, Obama ends his speech this way:
“America will survive. Just like black folks will survive. We won’t forget where we came from. We won’t forget what happened 19 months ago, or 15 years ago, or 300 years ago.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/02/obama-speech-jeremiah-wright-new-orleans/#ixzz28FDjsXpc
241
Post by: Ahtman
Frazzled wrote:I'd posit these as well. Remember people I didn't bring this topic up.
Perhaps not, but you aren't going to let it go either.
As for black folks remembering slavery, Jim Crowe, Tuskegee Experiments, ect, well, I'm not sure what the alternative is. You take quotes from a black speaker given to a black audience about black issues and then put it in front of a white crowd and it sounds foreign to them I suppose, but really only if they can't put things together as far as history and context. This sort of feigned outrage over why black folk won't just let go of past issues is a particularly craven white sentiment. 
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ahtman wrote: Frazzled wrote:I'd posit these as well. Remember people I didn't bring this topic up.
Perhaps not, but you aren't going to let it go either.
As for black folks remembering slavery, Jim Crowe, Tuskegee Experiments, ect, well, I'm not sure what the alternative is. You take quotes from a black speaker given to a black audience about black issues and then put it in front of a white crowd and it sounds foreign to them I suppose, but really only if they can't put things together as far as history and context. This sort of feigned outrage over why black folk won't just let go of past issues is a particularly craven white sentiment.
Its also called racial pandering.
5534
Post by: dogma
Politicians pandering to voting blocs? Why, that is unheard of!
I also like how the racial overtones are being forced onto Obama, and not the reporters.
That’s not, Obama says, what is happening in majority-black New Orleans. “What’s happening down in New Orleans? Where’s your dollar? Where’s your Stafford Act money?” Obama shouts, angry now. “Makes no sense! Tells me that somehow, the people down in New Orleans they don’t care about as much!”
Good work conservative media, you riled up your base and got more hits.
221
Post by: Frazzled
dogma wrote:
Politicians pandering to voting blocs? Why, that is unheard of!
I know! Shocking isn't it? Its almost like disparate groups have disparate interests!*
*I can't type "disparate" correctly to save my life.
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:
I know! Shocking isn't it? Its almost like disparate groups have disparate interests!
I like how poor conservatives seem to have the same interests as rich conservatives, and how poor liberals seem to have the same interests as rich liberals. And, more importantly, how "disparate groups" aren't really groups aside from voting tendencies.
221
Post by: Frazzled
dogma wrote: Frazzled wrote:
I know! Shocking isn't it? Its almost like disparate groups have disparate interests!
I like how poor conservatives seem to have the same interests as rich conservatives, and how poor liberals seem to have the same interests as rich liberals. And, more importantly, how "disparate groups" aren't really groups aside from voting tendencies.
Wait what? Are you disagreeing with yourself on the voting bloc front? Frazzled now confused.
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:
Wait what? Are you disagreeing with yourself on the voting bloc front? Frazzled now confused.
No, I'm playing off the idea of interests. Voting blocs aren't organized around interests, they're organized around preference. People often vote against their interests. At least where "interest" is material and "preference" is political or emotional.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
dogma wrote:[
No, I'm playing off the idea of interests. Voting blocs aren't organized around interests, they're organized around preference. People often vote against their interests. At least where "interest" is material and "preference" is political or emotional.
That was very astute Dogma and well said.
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
Yes, I forgot how the Germans bred chows, akitas, and huskeys.
Ah, that was a miscomunication on my part. I meant when you go and look at dog shows/show dogs I don't really see a lot of minorities competing.
Celebrating or studying a single culture within Europe is fine, and perfectly normal. Studying various European cultures but then stopping when you reach countries where the skin gets a little darker is more than a little weird.
Not really as we all have quite a few similarities in our history. Mainly what kind of effect the rise and fall of rome had on our respective nations, the viking age, the crusades, the wars of religion, reformation, plato, socrates, nitszche, descartes, the colonial age, WW1, WW2, the French revolution, pre christian religions, language groups, and the early and mid history of Christianity are all shared or heavily influential things cultually that are somewaht exclusive to Europe and north africa. (but we generally ignore North Africa post Islamic Expansionism aside from crusades/trading and such.)
I don't think anything annoys me quite as much as people who've never been to Scotland or Ireland in their lives suddenly wearing a kilt for their wedding.
Really? As long they are actually of Scottish blood and receive permission from the Clan head to wear that tartan I have no issue whatsoever as to if they've been to Scotland or not.
5470
Post by: sebster
Ratbarf wrote:Not really as we all have quite a few similarities in our history. Mainly what kind of effect the rise and fall of rome had on our respective nations, the viking age, the crusades, the wars of religion, reformation, plato, socrates, nitszche, descartes, the colonial age, WW1, WW2, the French revolution, pre christian religions, language groups, and the early and mid history of Christianity are all shared or heavily influential things cultually that are somewaht exclusive to Europe and north africa. (but we generally ignore North Africa post Islamic Expansionism aside from crusades/trading and such.)
I think once you start lumping the viking age and socrates into the same vague idea of culture you're in very strange territory.
Really? As long they are actually of Scottish blood and receive permission from the Clan head to wear that tartan I have no issue whatsoever as to if they've been to Scotland or not.
It's special snowflake syndrome, wanting to be something different from the norm, without actually being any different in any genuine way.
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
I think once you start lumping the viking age and socrates into the same vague idea of culture you're in very strange territory.
While yes, I was stretching more for shared cultural history. Both of those subjects are taught when you begin to look at Western Culture and History. Which is pretty much the history and culture of White People. It's special snowflake syndrome, wanting to be something different from the norm, without actually being any different in any genuine way.
I don't really understand this, you're getting angry because someone wants to express their individuality in a way appropriate with their genetic/ethnic/cultural heritage? At what is for all intents and purposes a very private communal event?
963
Post by: Mannahnin
The Fox News Obama junk is just race-baiting dog whistle stuff. Not getting enough traction, I guess, with what they feel are policy criticisms, so better stir up their viewers who are afraid of black people. Daily Show nailed that one tonight.
@Ratbarf-
You're retroactively defining Western Civilization as the history of white people. For most of that history (in fact up until quite recently), many white people would exclude other people you are now calling white (such as the Italians and Greeks, foundational though they are to Western Civ) and consider them a distinctly different ethnicity. Even among decidedly pale people, the Irish were specifically looked down upon by other groups as different times. Signs saying "No blacks, no Irish" in store windows were a real thing a hundred or so years ago.
As he said, you're blurring a bunch of different cultures oversimplification of ethnicity and culture into just skin color. It's not meaningful or accurate.
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
You're retroactively defining Western Civilization as the history of white people. For most of that history (in fact up until quite recently), many white people would exclude other people you are now calling white (such as the Italians and Greeks, foundational though they are to Western Civ) and consider them a distinctly different ethnicity. Even among decidedly pale people, the Irish were specifically looked down upon by other groups as different times. Signs saying "No blacks, no Irish" in store windows were a real thing a hundred or so years ago.
As he said, you're blurring a bunch of different cultures oversimplification of ethnicity and culture into just skin color. It's not meaningful or accurate.
And how is it different from the Umbrella that Black culture puts out? Especially when for much of the history of black civilisation white people considered East Indians and many Arabs to fall under the same distinction? Especially in America. Also the no Irish was something of a phenomena that only appeared in British culture and it's subsidiaries. And even if one was to exclude the Italians and Greeks and say that white is a Northern European culture many of the examples I put forward still apply.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
I've lost track of what you're arguing.
If we're talking historically, the point is that no one (outside the KKK or its ilk) would talk about white culture or history. Irish, Swedish, English, Italian, Greek, etc. all had distinct cultures and would certainly not lump themselves together the way you seem to be doing.
If you're comparing modern American "black culture" to "white culture", one factor I have to point out is that black people are still a small fraction of the American populace. Only around 12.6%. So it's not such a large number of people and groups being falsely conflated.
I'll certainly agree that it's silly to confuse/lump together African-Americans descended from slaves with more recent African immigrants, Jamaicans, Haitians, and other folks who really are of a different cultural background. But that's more a product of marketing, and of people being lazy and lumping people together based on skin color.
5470
Post by: sebster
Ratbarf wrote:While yes, I was stretching more for shared cultural history. Both of those subjects are taught when you begin to look at Western Culture and History. Which is pretty much the history and culture of White People.
But who is, and who isn't white people is something we've been making up as we go along, adding in groups as they've become rich enough to join the club. As a collective history it's a complete nonsense. I mean, what in the hell does Plato have to do with viking raids, seriously? The only connection is that both groups, at different times and for different reasons, came to achieve the socio-economic minimums needed to start being seen as white people. I don't really understand this, you're getting angry because someone wants to express their individuality in a way appropriate with their genetic/ethnic/cultural heritage?
I said I was annoyed by it. That means the same thing as seeing a Carpe Diem tattoo, or over revs their car at traffic lights, or when someone talks at the movies. You roll your eyes, turn to the person you're with, make a joke or something. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ratbarf wrote:And how is it different from the Umbrella that Black culture puts out? Especially when for much of the history of black civilisation white people considered East Indians and many Arabs to fall under the same distinction? Especially in America.
That 'black culture' thing you're describing is the culture of being a black person living in America. It doesn't make any pretence that all those black people were part of a common cultural heritage before coming to America. I mean, think about what food is black culture - people don't start listing a range of regional dishes from parts of Africa, they start talking about soul food - food that is a unique American creation. Also the no Irish was something of a phenomena that only appeared in British culture and it's subsidiaries.
Well, yeah. Because that's where the Irish migrated to. Why would a German colony put up a 'No Irish' poster when the Irish weren't migrating there? Meanwhile, the Germans thought of the Poles and the Slavs as different, lower races. None of them thought of those other groups as part of a greater white culture, because there was no such thing.
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
Well, yeah. Because that's where the Irish migrated to. Why would a German colony put up a 'No Irish' poster when the Irish weren't migrating there?
Actually the Irish lived somewhat extensively in Austria Germany and France due to the English persecution of them in Ireland. The Flight of the Wild Geese for instance, is a classic case. The French actually had Irish regiments because of this influx of Irish Catholics fleeing persecution in their native Ireland.
If we're talking historically, the point is that no one (outside the KKK or its ilk) would talk about white culture or history. Irish, Swedish, English, Italian, Greek, etc. all had distinct cultures and would certainly not lump themselves together the way you seem to be doing.
Actually the Germanic peoples for instance do have a shared cultural history and quite a bit of cultural and lingquistic commonality. And that group contains the English, German, French, and Scandinavian peoples.
But who is, and who isn't white people is something we've been making up as we go along, adding in groups as they've become rich enough to join the club. As a collective history it's a complete nonsense. I mean, what in the hell does Plato have to do with viking raids, seriously? The only connection is that both groups, at different times and for different reasons, came to achieve the socio-economic minimums needed to start being seen as white people.
The same with the "Black Culture" except they've been excluding people that used to be included as time has progressed.
I've lost track of what you're arguing.
To be honest so have I to some extent, but I think that the strongest point in favour of a shared White Culture is actually the pervasiveness and influence of the Medieval Christian Church. All of the groups now considered white, with the exception of jews of course, have that as a central part of their culture for roughly a thousand years. Pretty much all cultured learning from that period until about the 1500's and later was done through that church in either the Catholic or the splinter faction of Eastern Orthodoxy. With the Catholic church in the West and the Orthodox church in the East having, to a varying extent, a monopoly on books learning and the academic class. They are, for instance, the reason that until the 20th century everyone who was considered cultured, and indeed was a central pillar of the education of the academic world, could read and write latin. <(I don't really like how that flows, but I'll fix it when I'm less tired.) It was essentially a universal language and it provided a conduit for the transmission of culture and learning throughout Europe.
I've somewhat become muddled because of tiredness so I'll finish/refine this argument tommorow when I'm able to think clearly. I think I have the foundations of a good argument, I just can't seem to take it to it's conclusion at the moment.
5470
Post by: sebster
Ratbarf wrote:Actually the Irish lived somewhat extensively in Austria Germany and France due to the English persecution of them in Ireland. The Flight of the Wild Geese for instance, is a classic case. The French actually had Irish regiments because of this influx of Irish Catholics fleeing persecution in their native Ireland.
I knew of the French Irish regiments, didn't know of migration to Austria and Germany. Thanks for that titbit.
But it still sits in the obscure titbits of history section, and doesn't really compare to Irish numbers that migrated to the colonies.
The same with the "Black Culture" except they've been excluding people that used to be included as time has progressed.
So what?
To be honest so have I to some extent, but I think that the strongest point in favour of a shared White Culture is actually the pervasiveness and influence of the Medieval Christian Church. All of the groups now considered white, with the exception of jews of course, have that as a central part of their culture for roughly a thousand years. Pretty much all cultured learning from that period until about the 1500's and later was done through that church in either the Catholic or the splinter faction of Eastern Orthodoxy. With the Catholic church in the West and the Orthodox church in the East having, to a varying extent, a monopoly on books learning and the academic class. They are, for instance, the reason that until the 20th century everyone who was considered cultured, and indeed was a central pillar of the education of the academic world, could read and write latin. <(I don't really like how that flows, but I'll fix it when I'm less tired.) It was essentially a universal language and it provided a conduit for the transmission of culture and learning throughout Europe.
That shows that Christianity came to dominate Europe, which then splintered, and after a time splintered again. If that's what Europe has in common, then do we include or exclude the Christian populations of Africa? What about groups that have been Christian for a really, really long time, like the Coptics?
And where does that leave, say, Brazil? Because that country was colonised and populated by the Spanish, which is a Christian country on the European mainland. So is Brazil white?
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
And where does that leave, say, Brazil? Because that country was colonised and populated by the Spanish, which is a Christian country on the European mainland. So is Brazil white?
Certainly parts of it is, I've actually met a few of the ones who have kept a pretty pure Spanish bloodline down through the generations.
That shows that Christianity came to dominate Europe, which then splintered, and after a time splintered again. If that's what Europe has in common, then do we include or exclude the Christian populations of Africa? What about groups that have been Christian for a really, really long time, like the Coptics?
The difference would be that the coptics and african churches either came about later on account of european missionaries, in the case of the Africans, or were never under the influence of the Bishop of Rome, in the case of the Coptics. Both the Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox religions are offshoots or splinters from the Church of St. Peter. And as I also said earlier, that it is the shared history of the early and middle church that unites all of europe. Missions to African and the Americas didn't start until around the time of of the Reformation or later, and therefore it can be seen as a uniquely european, or in other words white, shared cultural history. Especially as the Pope and Catholic church shaped or influenced large parts of the culture and traditions of every european nation and populace that it came into contact with. That that contact was heavily limited to the geographical areas where whites are from it can be seen as a good foundation for white, and later western, culture.
For instance, the reason that both Plato and the Viking invasions have been seen as such important events even before modern or victorian sholars got their hands on them was because of the influence and effect they both had upon the Catholic church, which was then spread throughout Europe.
By the by, when I say Catholic I am usually also intending the inclusion of Greek and Russian Orthodoxy as well, as ideas were shared between those church and the Roman Catholic and later Reformed Churches.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Ratbarf wrote:And where does that leave, say, Brazil? Because that country was colonised and populated by the Spanish, which is a Christian country on the European mainland. So is Brazil white?
Certainly parts of it is, I've actually met a few of the ones who have kept a pretty pure Spanish bloodline down through the generations.
Wait, don't you chaps mean Portuguese?
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
Yes I guess we do, but it also applies to quite a bit of the Americas of both Spanish and Portugese origin.
5470
Post by: sebster
Ratbarf wrote:Certainly parts of it is, I've actually met a few of the ones who have kept a pretty pure Spanish bloodline down through the generations.
Hang on, so white culture is a thing because there's common European culture... but then your ancestors can move to another continent, immerse themselves a very different culture, but if they keep the Spanish bloodline is preserved then you're still white?
Are you getting how messy your thinking on this issue is, yet?
The difference would be that the coptics and african churches either came about later on account of european missionaries, in the case of the Africans, or were never under the influence of the Bishop of Rome, in the case of the Coptics.
What? There's been Christians in Egypt longer than there's been Christians in England. So why isn't Egypt, or at least the Coptics, part of this shared Christian faith of Europe? Automatically Appended Next Post:
I certainly would mean that, if my knowledge of Brazil wasn't utterly terrible
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
Hang on, so white culture is a thing because there's common European culture... but then your ancestors can move to another continent, immerse themselves a very different culture, but if they keep the Spanish bloodline is preserved then you're still white?
Would you call the Boers Zulu? How about Uighers asian? Just because you're immersed in a separate nation with a culture and population different than yours does not mean that you lose your cultural identity. What? There's been Christians in Egypt longer than there's been Christians in England. So why isn't Egypt, or at least the Coptics, part of this shared Christian faith of Europe?
So? That wasn't my point. The coptic Church isn't derived from St Peter like the Roman Catholic and the Greek and Russian Orthodoxies, but from Saint Mark. This split happened in the 5th century, and thus the Egyptian Coptics went their own way culturally. They were actually terrorised at different periods by both the Byzantines and Roman Catholics who viewed them as Heretics, worthy of stake burning. A good example of a culture that is similar in being an umbrella culture would be arabic culture. Arabic culture includes many different sub cultures who all still appeal to pan arabianism, and we don't bat an eyelash at it. Even though that culture contains many different ethnicities within the overarching one. For example, there is a huge difference between Saudi culture and Bedouin culture, yet they're still both considered part of arab culture. White culture can be taken in the same kind of overarching sense. Are you getting how messy your thinking on this issue is, yet?
Indeed I am, which is why I'm enjoying it. This conversation is making me collate arguments and thoughts that I don't normally get to discuss with anyone of decent intelligence, as most of the people I know who would agree with me are stupid, and those who wouldn't agree with me usually do so vehemently and without any other argument than, "That's Racist"
5470
Post by: sebster
Ratbarf wrote:Would you call the Boers Zulu? How about Uighers asian? Just because you're immersed in a separate nation with a culture and population different than yours does not mean that you lose your cultural identity.
Uh, comparing the Boers and their apartheid that kept them culturally and familially seperate from the local population, and assuming the same existed anywhere a person is just goofy.
So? That wasn't my point. The coptic Church isn't derived from St Peter like the Roman Catholic and the Greek and Russian Orthodoxies, but from Saint Mark. This split happened in the 5th century, and thus the Egyptian Coptics went their own way culturally. They were actually terrorised at different periods by both the Byzantines and Roman Catholics who viewed them as Heretics, worthy of stake burning.
I don't think obscure points of religion like which prophet a faith derived from two thousand years ago really impacts on a meaningful level, to be honest.
Coptic faith drifted apart because it was in a seperate country, just a Christian faith has evolved in response to every culture its been a part of. As Egypt isn't part of Europe despite the Coptics, I think it is equally reasonable to state that Europe as a whole cannot be considered as a single culture, despite having a single faith.
A good example of a culture that is similar in being an umbrella culture would be arabic culture. Arabic culture includes many different sub cultures who all still appeal to pan arabianism, and we don't bat an eyelash at it. Even though that culture contains many different ethnicities within the overarching one.
For example, there is a huge difference between Saudi culture and Bedouin culture, yet they're still both considered part of arab culture.
I remember studying exactly what made Arabs arabic back in my uni days. Most of the pan-arabic claims fell flat, as any time you saw a similarity it'd have a bunch of exceptions. Ultimately, the only thing you can really claim makes a person arabic is that they speak the language, outside of that the region is just too diverse for the idea of it being a single culture to be all that useful.
White culture can be taken in the same kind of overarching sense.
I think the idea of a pan-Arabian culture is weak, and at least they share a common tongue.
Indeed I am, which is why I'm enjoying it. This conversation is making me collate arguments and thoughts that I don't normally get to discuss with anyone of decent intelligence, as most of the people I know who would agree with me are stupid, and those who wouldn't agree with me usually do so vehemently and without any other argument than, "That's Racist"
This is one of those issues that is all too prone to reactive political grandstanding, that's true. I'm just as grateful I haven't to be told I'm just being PC.
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
I don't think obscure points of religion like which prophet a faith derived from two thousand years ago really impacts on a meaningful level, to be honest.
They simply were the greatest and likely most well known example of a culture maintaining itself regardless of differences between it and the local population. I could also say those white who lived in Hong Kong, India, Singapore. They all were completely surrounded by a different culture and ethinicity yet still managed to keep their cultural identity. You could, again, say that this was due to an unbalanced system of government, but the same can be said of those South American nations prior to there revolutions in which the Spanish or Portugese overlords were overthrown or driven out. Yet some still stayed, not unlike those of British Descent who stayed in India or Hong Kong.
However a somewhat better argument could be made from those of Indian descent who were transported to Africa to work as labourers and have still managed to retain their culture and ethnic characteristics, despite being on the wrong side of political advantage.
I don't think obscure points of religion like which prophet a faith derived from two thousand years ago really impacts on a meaningful level, to be honest.
Coptic faith drifted apart because it was in a seperate country, just a Christian faith has evolved in response to every culture its been a part of. As Egypt isn't part of Europe despite the Coptics, I think it is equally reasonable to state that Europe as a whole cannot be considered as a single culture, despite having a single faith
Actually it makes/made a world of difference to Christians and especially to the early Catholic Church, who later decreed that the Coptics were heretics, something which has since been rescinded, and they suffered a great deal from both their muslim masters and any european crusaders or christian kingdoms that they came across. Calvinists viewed them as little better than Arianists, and far worse than followers of the various Orthodoxies.
I think it is equally reasonable to state that Europe as a whole cannot be considered as a single culture, despite having a single faith
I would say that it provides a good argument for it, in the same manner that the middle east could be called an area of on culture due to the cultural similarities that have come about due to Islam. (This is of course ignoring for the moment the split between Arab, Persian, Turkish ethnicities and Sunni and Shia Islam.)
|
|
