no... some people hate Obama because he's an inexperienced egomaniac who's bypassing congress, disolving our countries strenght, dissing his opponants AT EVERY TURN, running off a string of lies and running up the debt to insane levels.
did you know that raising the debt ceiling is a sign of bad leadership! [link]
Obama's done it once already, and is about to do it the second time... what a hypocrat
Because few people outside of Alabama hate Obama for being black. There are so many other very good reasons to hate Obama, so for you to assume that white people only care about his race is horribly racist.
The sad thing is, there are a lot of countries out there that think America is absolutely idiotic for all of our "race issues."... Before we go calling people racist for not supporting someone from a minority group, we really need to look at the persecutions that have occured/do occur/are still occuring in various African and Asian countries. At least in America, most so-called "racism" doesn't result in a person being tortured and murdered any more!
What the hell does that have to do with this conversation?
What I'm talking about is real racism versus this stupid hissy-fit crap we have in America over jobs or crime or what-have-you. Sometimes the white guy is more qualified for the job position. Sometimes the black guy or the latino guy is responsible for the crime. Sometimes we have to accept that equality means equal treatment and not favoritism to the "oppressed" group.
You seem to think that because America doesn't suffer 'real' racism (which is, apparently, limited to lynching and enslavement) there's no reason to care about the racism we do have. Never mind the incarceration rates, never mind the levels of poverty, never mind the institutionalized prejudice which attempts to erase entire segments of society which fail to conform to cultural expectations; I guess because it's not Darfur here, nobody should complain?
'Equal treatment' requires more than just de jure equality. When certain segments of the population have substantially greater disadvantages in society, it takes more than removing legal barriers to establish real equality.
You act like white people never live in poverty in this country. So you'd help the minorities and do nothing for the caucasians living in poverty? That's what you seem to be saying.
Giving people handouts does not teach them how to fix their situation. It only makes them reliant on those handouts. You want to fix poverty and crime rates among minorities in this country? Fine, teach them the skills they need to succeed in this world... but don't leave out their poor white neighbors and you better punish their crimes instead of saying "Sorry, we've already arrested too many minorities this month. The rest of you are free to go about your little gang wars and drug dealings and misc. other crimes." The only thing that attitude does is put the minorities in danger who don't participate in criminal behavior!
And "fail to conform to cultural expectations"? Are you kidding!?... So you think that because honor killings or child prostitution or animal fighting/abuse are legal in other countries that we should just allow immigrants to bring those practices here? Even though they're against our laws? You just want to give anyone from another culture who moves to this country a free pass to do whatever they please? If you live in America, you have to live by American laws! If you live in the UK, you have to live by their laws. If you live in Canada or Australia or France or Russia or Japan, you have to live by their laws! So don't spout bullshit about non-conformity to our culture and persecution. If they want to live here, they have to respect that things are different here, and we will throw their butts in jail or fine them for anything that an American-born caucasian would be punished for doing.
If they disagree with American culture, fine... let them come here for a college education or whatever and then move back to a country whose culture they do agree with! America is about equality for everyone... not just one group or another. You can't make exceptions for one group if you're not going to make them for all other groups.
Because, like it or not, race is still a factor for some. Loads of things shouldn't matter in choosing a leader but they can swing votes. An ugly leader has less chance than an attractive one, a tall one more chance than a short one, someone with expression more than someone monotone, someone who appears confident rather than worried etc. None of these should be relevant but they just are.
That's the misconception, confidence and speaking well are not signs that you have a clue what needs to be done to lead a country. That deals with our old ideals of having the biggest and strongest lead us, it does not relate to having the brightest or most able lead us.
Yet, in the class I took last year, that was all about teamwork and leadership, all literature said the opposite to you
Take two people.
One person is very smart, but is not confident. They consistently second guess themselves. They talk about doing things, but hardly ever put them into action. They can not stand criticism and they do not like looking at the negative outcomes.
One person is of average intelligence, but is confident. They decide on their course of action, they look at all outcomes, even the negative ones and review their progress.
You can't tell me that the first person is a better leader
Maybe I should highlight an important word: appears confident. Actually lacking confidence is bad but there are many confident people who don't rub it in your face. Many quieter people still have firm convictions and know what they want, how they are going to get it and will fight their corner.
Most people assume simply being loud and abrasive is a sign of a confident individual when it could actually be the sign of someone who isn't confident.
Because some people need something to hide behind so they can convince their useful idiots (and sometimes themselves as well) that they're not being criticized for good reason. And unfortunately, fear of being accused of racism is still prevalent enough to make people shut their brains off and not speak out against something.
Please explain what you mean by this. I personally feel it was the people's frustration with GOP politics that got Obama in more than any other factor...
Also, i don't believe that pride in one's race or ethnicity(necessarily)makes them racist. When the belief that one's race is somehow superior to other races, that is when racist manifestation of thought and action occurs.
Race is very important, but its importance is tied-in with one's socio-economic background and other personal identity factors as well.
Obama's apparent 'Blackness' is little more than a political apparatus, considering that his background and current disposition is undoubtably that of a white man. He cannot identify with the average Black person's struggle because he never experienced their struggle firsthand, he was raised by wealthy, esteemed family members in an exotic, liberal paradise and has always been an upper-cruster.
Stewart Alexander is a politician whose Blackness would be truly relevant to his campaign.
You most certainly do take me seriously. If you did not, you would not feel the need to respond to my post with such an obvious straw man, clearly signifying desperation on your part. If my post was so laughably illogical then you would have responded to what was actually said, because it would have taken minimal effort to refute. You did not do this because I made a sound point.
Your question is illegitimate on the grounds that:
1. Nowhere in the context of my post did I say that Obama is not of Black lineage. I said that his 'Blackness' is little more than a tool for gaining political ground and that he cannot personally identify with the average Black person's struggle (which is a part of Blackness) because he has never experienced that struggle. Blackness is more than just a matter of lineage, it includes one's socio-economical position, cultural heritage, and to an extent, political ideology.
2. I did not say that Obama cannot identify with Blackness or the Black struggle simply because he owns excess capital. Obama cannot identify with Blackness because he is half-white, has a white identity which he himself acknowledges in referring to himself as "mixed" or "biracial", was raised amongst a rich, white family in a liberal region which had almost no Black population, went to a white-majority university and continued to live a lifestyle equivalent to that of a white aristocrat. Herman Caine is wealthy, but his Blackness is not illegitimate because he has personally experienced the conditions which have binded a consider portion of Black people in the United States to less opportunity and lower quality of life. Obama, like many white liberals, seems to believe that Black issues are something that can be fixed by simply throwing money at the problem. Caine and Alexander both understand that the Black struggle is primarily a social, community-based struggle, despite their somewhat radical ideological differences with the former candidate being a paleoconservative and the latter being a democratic-socialist.
Me taking you seriously: "You're engaging in a no-true-Scotsman fallacy, and engaging in racial determinism of the Typical Mind Fallacy variety. Your comment shares more in common with the Klu Klux Klan than with Frederick Douglas; you've decided that race is deterministic of wealth, of social connections, and of ideology."
I don't mock people I take seriously. Your ideologies don't deserve to be taken seriously, they deserve to be scorned and mocked as the racist bullshit they are. You believe that anybody who doesn't tie their identity to their race is failing their race - this is exactly the kind of nonsense that white supremacists believe in.
"You're engaging in a no-true-Scotsman fallacy, and engaging in racial determinism of the Typical Mind Fallacy variety."
I am doing no such thing. You are simply in denial of the fact that "Blackness" and "Black" are different concepts, with the former being synonymous with Black nationalism, Black pride and movements inclusive of these concepts, and the latter being a collective of African lineages. You deny this fact out of sheer convenience.
"...you've decided that race is deterministic of wealth, of social connections, and of ideology.""
Again, I have done no such thing. You either lack reading comprehension or you are lying out of desperation.
"You believe that anybody who doesn't tie their identity to their race is failing their race"
To the contrary my ignorant friend, (probably unlike you) I actually acknowledge race as purely fictitious and am explicitly anti-white myself. I only see legitimacy in non-white races because they are reactionary constructs. Regardless of its legitimacy, race holds importance in our society because it is treated as legitimate. Whites who propagate colorblindness are implicit racists because they neglect preexisting social issues as well as their own subconscious tendency to discriminate against others as a result of prior social conditioning.
(Also, once again I would like to point out that you are arguing against that which was not said. Nowhere in the context of this thread have I said that Obama is failing his race because he does not identify with race. Such an accusation is utterly nonsensical because I clearly stated that Obama openly identifies with race.)
"...this is exactly the kind of nonsense that white supremacists believe in."
I am terribly sorry to inform you of this but evading the entirety of my post, continuously fabricating claims on my part, and topping it all off with false, baseless allegations of white supremacy or behavior reminiscent of the KKK does not validate your own idiocy in the least.
And this is why I didn't take you seriously, and opted to mock you instead. What you just wrote? Is 100% bullshit. At best you're a troll, at worst you're actually engaging in these pathetic rationalizations.
Picking them apart:
"You are simply in denial of the fact that "Blackness" and "Black" are different concepts"
- I'm evaluating your post in the context it was written. If you're discussing a different concept, you fail communication forever, and wrote a complete non-sequitor comment in response to a topic about race in politics, not about racial nationalism. If you're not, you're just engaging in a sad little rationalization. I'm betting on the latter.
"Again, I have done no such thing."
- "his background and current disposition is undoubtably that of a white man... he was raised by wealthy, esteemed family members" - I rest my case. Rationalize away.
"I actually acknowledge race as purely fictitious and am explicitly anti-white myself"
- The two concepts embodied in this sentence? Are contradictory. And patent rationalizations.
"...race holds importance in our society because it is treated as legitimate. Whites who propagate colorblindness are implicit racists"
- You just legitimized race. There's no way out of the cycle you just invoked. This is tautological logic; it's yet another logical fallacy. Allow me to demonstrate: Proposition A: Race has social ramifications Proposition B: Race is considered legitimate
You've stated that A->B->A; this is the tautology. Race is considered legitimate because race has social ramifications because race is considered legitimate.
And ~B->A->B is a contradiction, a base logical error. If race is considered illegitimate, that results in race having social ramifications; using your first tautology, because race has social ramifications, race is thus considered legitimate.
Indeed, there's no way out of the logical cycle. Shit, even a contradiction leads back into the logical cycle. You fail Logic 101.
"Nowhere in the context of this thread have I said that Obama is failing his race because he does not identify with race."
- "Obama, like many white liberals, seems to believe that Black issues are something that can be fixed by simply throwing money at the problem" "Obama cannot identify with Blackness because he is half-white..."
I rest my case. Granted, you don't think he belongs to that race, but your basis for that is your aforementioned No-True-Scotsman fallacy.
"I am terribly sorry to inform you of this but evading the entirety of my post, continuously fabricating claims on my part, and topping it all off with false, baseless allegations of white supremacy or behavior reminiscent of the KKK does not validate your own idiocy in the least."
- I didn't accuse you of white supremacy. I said you engaged in the same sort of nonsense as white supremacists. Lovely reading comprehension, though.
At any rate, you're demolished, even if you're too stupid (or in this case, too wrapped up in a misjudgement of your own intelligence; truly, misapplied intelligence is by far worse than stupidity) to understand that. Your best bet now is to acknowledge you're a troll, or to pretend you are one, whichever the case may be. It was seriously better for you when I merely mocked you. It was a mercy.
Now I think I'll go do white things, like smoke clove cigarettes and drink imported schnapps. I'm sure I'm not black enough for you. I'm seriously tearing up at the prospect that you might not approve of me.
"he was raised by wealthy, esteemed family members in an exotic, liberal paradise and has always been an upper-cruster."
Not really, he spent most of his young life living in either Hawaii or Indonesia and was raised by his divorcee mother. Sure he didn't have the kind of life a typical black person living in the mainland may have had but he was hardly born with a silver spoon in his mouth.
Oh, and let's not forget that his father was a fucking Harvard graduate as well as a senior governmental economist of the nation of Kenya. I seriously doubt that he did nothing to financially compensate Dunham and his son.