Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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?

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.

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.

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.

 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.

It never has been, the people making that point also claim that white power and black power mean the same thing.

 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.

 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.

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.

 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.

Racism involves superiority and discrimination. You can join the NAACP if you want to and they will not prevent you from joining.

 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!

 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!

 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.

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.

 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.

What about the staggering increase In the overall black vote, though?

Whew. Read the thread twice. Almost though for moment if I didn't vote for Obama I'm a racist.

Sure it's racism... just not the "bad one".

 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

 whembly wrote:
Sure it's racism... just not the "bad one".

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.

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.

 Polonius wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Sure it's racism... just not the "bad one".

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.

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.

 whembly wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Sure it's racism... just not the "bad one".

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.

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:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
What about the staggering increase In the overall black vote, though?

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.

 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.

 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.

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.

 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.