""Black," in our political and social reality, means those descended from West African slaves. Voluntary immigrants of African descent (even those descended from West Indian slaves) are just that, voluntary immigrants of African descent with markedly different outlooks on the role of race in their lives and in politics. At a minimum, it can't be assumed that a Nigerian cabdriver and a third-generation Harlemite have more in common than the fact a cop won't bother to make the distinction. They're both "black" as a matter of skin color and DNA, but only the Harlemite, for better or worse, is politically and culturally black, as we use the term."
I am not sure how I feel about this. Well, I guess I am confused.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
From Aspectre's post in the other Obama thread:
quote:...asked..if growing up in a white household had caused him to make a decision to be black, Obama replies, "I'm not sure I decided it. I think... if you look African American in this society, you're treated as an African-American. It's interesting though, that now I feel very comfortable and confident in terms of who I am and where I stake my ground. But I notice that... I've become a focal point for a racial debate," says Obama.
I think it's true that people don't see descendents of slaves versus descendents of voluntary immigrants- they visually see a black person. I think that any stereotypes or associations a person has about black people will exist regardless of their heritage.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a white woman, I would never have thought of the distinction. But for a black AMerican, I suppose there are all sorts of distinctions I would not consider.
It seems to me that an American of African descent would be an African American. But Dickerson(on Stephen Colbert) actually referred to this group as "African African Americans." I did not get the feeling she was being facetious.
It just breaks my heart to think that, when we finally have a viable African American candidate for president, he could be taken down because he is "not black enough."
The whole thing is just setting off a whirlwind of confusion and sadness for me.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can understand the need to delineate between the descendants of slaves, and black people who immigrated or who's parents immigrated voluntarily; they can't be lopped together in the context of reparations debates, for example.
But if we're going to use a term to refer to the American descendants of West African slaves, shouldn't that term be 'African American' rather than 'black'? All over the world the word 'black' is merely an indicator of skin colour.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was a belief that the nation's first black president would be a person who came from the black American culture -- descended from slaves, and so forth -- rather than the black African culture that Obama is placed in (even though Obama's father left when he was very young, and he was raised here). There do exist cultural and political differences between black Americans descended from slaves and black Africans who immigrated to the US recently. My parents are examples of this.
I will say there are different stereotypes attached to the two groups, even if people can't distinguish between them on sight [edit: though I doubt they existed when Obama was growing up, since there were not many African immigrants during that time.]
To be honest with you, the entire debate reminds me of the "not black enough" comments that were thrown at Tony Williams when he was elected mayor of Washington. As far as most of this country is concerned, he is still a black guy. Growing up in this country, he had the experiences of a black man, regardless of how he was raised.
--j_k, who edited this for clarity and to remove repitition
[ February 10, 2007, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posts: 3617 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:""Black," in our political and social reality, means those descended from West African slaves.
This part could probably not be more wrong. In our political and social reality, to be black means to look black.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's cynically ironic that here we've got someone whose skin is 'black' as it's called in the United States, and some blacks here are setting aside Senator Obama based on the circumstances of his birth.
I also find it ironic that in the article, she states that "...the black embrace is Obama's to lose." This, in an article laced with doubt and criticism and 'he's not really black'.
quote:We know a great deal about black people.
Also quite a troubling statement...one which would even be viewed (correctly, in my opinion) if it were a white person doing the saying.
quote: For all our sakes, it seemed (again) best not to point out the obvious: You're not embracing a black man, a descendant of slaves.
On the one hand, President Clinton had to reassure us whites that we knew how to keep the black man in line. On the other hand, us whites are sophisticated enough to notice the difference between one black man and another based on his parents. Because, after all, Jim Crow checked pedigree.
quote:It is also to point out the continuing significance of the slave experience to the white American psyche; it's not we who can't get over it. It's you.
Also amusing because much of this article (in fact, nearly all of it) illustrates that she can't get over it, either. It's a strange bundle of contradictions, which hardly make sense it seems to me even if one does buy into the initial assumptions being made.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you, JTK. I mean, I get it, I suppose, it just makes me realize how very white I am, and how clueless of these nuances, which to an African American is not a nuance, but an extreme difference.
Still, semantically, "African American" is an American of African descent. So, maybe there needs to be a new term? But why does there need to be a new term? Why do we need to make all these distinctions?
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, Samprimary. I was trying to get at that. Apparently, to the author, to be black means to both look black, and then to pass a "who are your parents" test.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The idea is this: if you haven't been degraded enough, you don't get the membership card and the discount coffee at Denny's.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
*sigh* Why is it that we in this nation (not to mention the world as a whole) are so intent on putting up bigger and better divides between people.
I hear people say that Barak Obama isn't "black enough". The president of Gaulladet University was recently forced out of her position by students who decided that she wasn't "deaf enough" because she hadn't grown up speaking American Sign Language...which, by the way, was probably not her choice but that of her parents.
It goes on and on. Now, some people might think I don't have a right to an opinion on either issue because I'm white and hearing, but I just think it is stupid that we keep on emphasizing our differences. It's like people don't want to get along, like they want to find things to argue about.
You know, the sentiment "united we stand, divided we fall" applies to the species as a whole, not just to cultures and ethnicities within the species. Go back and look at those photos of earth from moon orbit and the moon's surface that the astronauts on the Apollo missions took...we're all in the same boat, folks, and while it seems very large from down here, it really isn't that big. If it sinks we don't, at present, have any lifeboats to speak of. I think it behooves everyone, from every ethnicity and religion and culture group to start looking for those points of commonality.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Essentially, if Obama is elected, he would be the first black President, but he wouldn't be the first black President descended from slaves, which is what the term "African-American" is usually taken to mean.
Seriously, though, I think if we're going to start talking about people in terms of who they're parents are rather than how they lived their lives (or, n Obama's case, what they experienced) then we're in ugly territory.
As far as terminology goes:
There was a suggestion somewhere that naturalized citizens would be "African-Americans" and the rest would be "Black Americans." Solves the South Africa issue, but this wouldn't work for every racial group, simply because this country is more than just blacks and whites. Someone else suggested putting the word American first, for any given racial group.
I really don't think we need another set of terms, particularly if we use experience (that is, everything after birth) to define someone.
--j_k
[ February 10, 2007, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posts: 3617 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be technical, I would call Barak Obama Kenyan-American, not African American but still say that he is black. One describes origin, the other skin-color. Since he looks "black," he is black. It really shouldn't matter, but it does, unfortunately. The fact of the matter is that, fifty years ago, Barak Obama would not have been able to sit at a lunch counter in Alabama becouse of the way he looked. Of course the same might be said of an Australian Aborigine.
Americans of African descent is concrete. Black doesn't exist except as perception.
Posts: 211 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there something about this candidate that is worth discussing, ASIDE from his race? Geesh...
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You know, the sentiment "united we stand, divided we fall" applies to the species as a whole, not just to cultures and ethnicities within the species.
I think we have so much trouble with this because the reality is usually "united we can stand against X, divided we will fall to X."
There's not much that can replace the second X that can also replace the first.
quote:""Black," in our political and social reality, means those descended from West African slaves.
This part could probably not be more wrong. In our political and social reality, to be black means to look black.
I disagree, at least in comparison to other cultures.
For instance, in Brazil, this is much more true. Due to a long history of integration verses our history of segregation, the majority of Brazilians have some African blood in them. Another result of this is that there is no such thing as "black culture" in Brazil -- it's all just Brazilian culture.
In Brazil, you are black if you look black. It doesn't matter what your parents were -- it just matters what you look like.
For instance, I doubt that if she were Brazilian, Halle Berry would be considered black. Her skin tone is well within the normal range for Brazilians, and her facial features don't look very African (at least to me).
Now, I'm not saying that the way it's done in Brazil is the way it should be done. I'm just saying, at least in comparison to Brazil, being black in the United States has much more to do with what culture you come from than how you look.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The term African-American is flawed to begin with, it calls upon an observer to assume that just because a person’s skin colour is black, they are a) of African descent and b) American citizens.
Moving beyond that, I have a big problem with Debra Dickenson’s point that because someone’s ancestors weren’t slaves then that person doesn’t have a right to be called black or African-American. No one alive in America today was ever a slave or ever owned slaves, get over it. The only issue is the continued prejudice exhibited against black people, and Obama was just as much a part of that as Uncle Tom’s great-grand children.
Dickenson is the one being prejudiced and racist by implying that Obama isn’t ‘pure’ enough to be part of her special little group.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christine: "Is there something about this candidate that is worth discussing, ASIDE from his race?"
Excerpt from his announcement:
quote:We'll have to make hard choices. And although government will play a crucial role in bringing about the changes we need, more money and programs alone will not get us where we need to go. Each of us, in our own lives, will have to accept responsibility -- for instilling an ethic of achievement in our children, for adapting to a more competitive economy, for strengthening our communities, and sharing some measure of sacrifice. So let us begin. Let us begin this hard work together. Let us transform this nation.
Let us be the generation that reshapes our economy to compete in the digital age. Let's set high standards for our schools and give them the resources they need to succeed. Let's recruit a new army of teachers, and give them better pay and more support in exchange for more accountability. Let's make college more affordable, and let's invest in scientific research, and let's lay down broadband lines through the heart of inner cities and rural towns all across America.
And as our economy changes, let's be the generation that ensures our nation's workers are sharing in our prosperity. Let's protect the hard-earned benefits their companies have promised. Let's make it possible for hardworking Americans to save for retirement. And let's allow our unions and their organizers to lift up this country's middle class again.
Let's be the generation that ends poverty in America. Every single person willing to work should be able to get job training that leads to a job, and earn a living wage that can pay the bills, and afford child care so their kids have a safe place to go when they work. Let's do this...I know there are those who don't believe we can do all these things. I understand the skepticism. After all, every four years, candidates from both parties make similar promises, and I expect this year will be no different. All of us running for president will travel around the country offering ten-point plans and making grand speeches; all of us will trumpet those qualities we believe make us uniquely qualified to lead the country. But too many times, after the election is over, and the confetti is swept away, all those promises fade from memory, and the lobbyists and the special interests move in, and people turn away, disappointed as before, left to struggle on their own.
The big gamble is whether he means it, or is he talking to talk. Ninety-five percent of politicians don't even talk about the issues I care about. Then when they do, like Bush on alternative energy, they look into the television and lie, but with Obama, the question is whether he is going to give a good faith effort into fulfilling his rhetoric. I think he is, and to that extent, I'll help him.
posted
Here's a video of Debra Dickerson discussing the issue with Steven Colbert. It's pretty great. Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Essentially, if Obama is elected, he would be the first black President, but he wouldn't be the first black President descended from slaves, which is what the term "African-American" is usually taken to mean.
How many people do you really know who live their lives with this level of specification, j_k? If you were asked about someone with fair skin, blue eyes, and blonde hair what race they were, wouldn't you say something probably very close to, "I don't know, he looked like a white guy?"
And if you were asked about someone with dark skin, brown eyes, and very kinky (or curly, I'm not actually sure which adjective applies) hair, wouldn't you say, "I'm not sure, he looked like a black guy, I guess? Or African-American?"
I've never met a person who looks at someone who appears black, but doesn't label them in their speech (or ideas, although of course I can mostly only guess at those) as either black or African-American. There are people I've met, and even some I've known, who use other, very stupid and hateful adjectives, of course. But, "I'm not sure...he looks black, but I don't know if he's from West African stock, or maybe from Kenya," has never come up.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But, Rakeesh, I definitely distinguish between different white European Americans. Irish, Italian, Spanish...
I notice a difference.
For whatever reason, we humans categorize and subcategorize ourselves.
And there are dark-skinned Indians who look nothing like African Americans.
For me, it comes down to this: here we are, on the eve of change, when a woman and a man of color are vying for the Democratic nomination for president of our country, and we(the general we) are bickering over whether this woman is woman enough, and whether this man has enough color. Sadly,it seems to me, each group, which has fought so hard for its rights, is shooting itself in the foot.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My high school chemistry teacher was born in Africa, as were his parents and grandparents. His parents moved to the states when he was 12, and he's lived here ever since.
Although he never took issue with it, for me, it really pointed out the inadequacy of the title "African-American" to describe someone's skin color--because Mr. G was white.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is true, perhaps, that a descendant of immigrants would feel differently about his racial heritage than a descendant of slaves; so, to whatever extent Obama forms his own identity from his skin colour, he is perhaps not very black. I would hope, though, that a man who may become President of the United States would instead form his identity from his experience and intellect; and since his experience with others depends on their perception of him, why, he's as black as any man.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:How many people do you really know who live their lives with this level of specification, j_k? If you were asked about someone with fair skin, blue eyes, and blonde hair what race they were, wouldn't you say something probably very close to, "I don't know, he looked like a white guy?"
Hmm, this is a point I wanted to make, but I'm not sure how to put it.
When the term African-American first showed up, it meant "American of slave ancestry," because naturalized blacks were very rare. So, even today, if someone is described as "African-American," the mental image is a black person who is a citizen of this country -- but there's also assumption is that he or she is descended from slaves, simply because most black Americans are. The two concepts became synonymous, even though they shouldn't be.
So when Dickerson says that "he's not African-American," I don't think she means his skin color or his genotype as much as she means his ancestry. It's odd, because he certainly is "African-American" in the most logical sense, and he's certainly had that experience.
More importantly, none of this has any bearing on how he is perceived, or how he would've been perceived thirty years ago.
I get the impression she wants to be able to draw a straight line from "slave" to "President." I think she's missed what all the excitement is about. There was a time when Obama would have never had a chance. People are excited by how much this country as a whole has changed.
*
Incidentally, applications often list "Black" and "African American" as two separate options under ethnicity. The last Census had the option "Black/African American/Negro" (go figure).
*
quote:Sadly,it seems to me, each group, which has fought so hard for its rights, is shooting itself in the foot.
That's what I'm afraid of.
--j_k
[ February 11, 2007, 12:44 AM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posts: 3617 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do we have proof that his father's family weren't at some point slaves? Not American slaves, obviously, but African slavery was and IS very much a reality.
Regardless I think it's silly. His heritage means nothing in this debate. What about a black family that came to America from Africa AFTER slavery ended? They weren't slaves, but they certainly would know what the "african american experience" is all about.
It's issues like this I think, that hinder more than aid whatever cause African American PACs are fighting for. We keep hearing how race is such a problem in America, and I'd say the grand majority of the fault for that problem is fixed squarely on the backs of white people, and now there's a potential civil war, if you will, among the black community on who is and isn't African American? It's like arguing who is and isn't black enough, it's stupid. This is the kind of argument that takes us backwards, not forwards.
I've read "An American Story" by Dickerson, I read it a couple years ago for an history class. It was a great story, and I really respect her. I don't like what she has to say on this though.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should add, that at the end of her interview with Colbert, Dickerson says this isn't a diss on Obama but rather on white self congratulations, and that we feel all good and such about wanting to vote for a black man, but he's not really black.
She also said if he was sub-Saharan, he'd never be this popular.
Funny, do you think whenever opinion polls ask if you would vote for Obama, they give all the respondents a run down of his genetic karyotype? No one gives a flying flip about his lineage, they care about what he has to say! If a black man from Antarctica was doing and saying the things he's saying, he'd be just as popular, or from anywhere else on Earth. I don't get what Dickerson, or anyone, gets out of making a hullaballoo over useless distinctions like this.
If she's attacking white people, which from her own words it certainly sounds like, she's going about it rather poorly I think.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I should add, that at the end of her interview with Colbert, Dickerson says this isn't a diss on Obama but rather on white self congratulations, and that we feel all good and such about wanting to vote for a black man, but he's not really black.
The thing is, I'd guess that a majority* of Americans don't know Senator Obama's heritage. Therefore to most Americans, they look at him and see a black man, or an African American man...and I believe we can all agree that, to most Americans, being black means an ancestral tie to African slavery in America, and a much stronger tie to recent history of minority oppression in the United States.
I don't know where she's getting this idea that white Americans care where Senator Obama's father was from. Hidden within what she is saying is the idea that a child of West African slaves couldn't have grown up to be like Senator Obama...and that is why 'White America' is so tolerant of him, and wouldn't be if he were different.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Following Dickerson's argument about "black" only referring to the descendants of African slaves, wouldn't that also mean that "white" should only refer to descendants of slave owners?
Personally, I dislike the term African-American... it seems silly to me, to tie certain citizens to the culture their predecessors belonged to two hundred years ago, while other immigrant families [german, french, spanish, irish immigrants] are just seen as "American".
Posts: 142 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Question: Does anywhere else in the world refer to their black citizens with titles like "African-(nationality)". Like African-French, African-Australian, African-Russian...?
I definitely agree that the term African-American is inappropriate these days.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't get what Dickerson, or anyone, gets out of making a hullaballoo over useless distinctions like this
It makes it harder to claim to be a victimized minority when a member of that minority is elected president. By redefining that minority to explicitly exclude him, you can continue to claim to be victims.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
All this proves to me is that liberals are as racist, provincial, and biased as any of the conservatives they like to Harass. Then they get on their high horse and call it defending multiculturalism or personal rights.
"Does anywhere else in the world refer to their black citizens with titles like "African-(nationality)". Like African-French, African-Australian, African-Russian...?"
Actually, there are some nations (a few who criticize the U.S. for its so-called racism) that won't even grant a hyphen citizenship. They just try to exclude particular groups from any social involvment. Think of Muslim-French or Dutch for instance.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:All this proves to me is that liberals are as racist, provincial, and biased as any of the conservatives they like to Harass. Then they get on their high horse and call it defending multiculturalism or personal rights.
Yes, because as usual, the words of one liberal should be used to criticize all liberals-especially the ones who explicity disagree with Dickerson-do and say. Which I'm sure you would not object to liberals doing about conservatives, for someone such as Fred Phelps.
----------------
quote:Following Dickerson's argument about "black" only referring to the descendants of African slaves, wouldn't that also mean that "white" should only refer to descendants of slave owners?
Given her statements about why exactly 'white America' is so fond of Senator Obama, I'm not sure if she doesn't already equate white with 'descendant of slave owner'. Her justifications for that would be interesting to hear, if I'm right, given that most white people aren't the descendants of slave owners.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
""Black," in our political and social reality, means those descended from West African slaves. Voluntary immigrants of African descent (even those descended from West Indian slaves) are just that, voluntary immigrants of African descent with markedly different outlooks on the role of race in their lives and in politics. At a minimum, it can't be assumed that a Nigerian cabdriver and a third-generation Harlemite have more in common than the fact a cop won't bother to make the distinction. They're both "black" as a matter of skin color and DNA, but only the Harlemite, for better or worse, is politically and culturally black, as we use the term."
I am not sure how I feel about this. Well, I guess I am confused.
So if Obama isn't black, then I guess I'm not white. I mean, I'm not descended from slave-owning Americans. Hell, my family wasn't even in this country until less than a hundred years ago.
Racists like Debra Dickerson want to have it both ways. She'd insist that I'm white, but won't have Obama as black.
That said, he really isn't any more black than he is white, except to racists.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except I don't find Fred Phelps as objectionable as you seem to expect. I think he is rather brash, but I can't say I think he is wrong
"Yes, because as usual, the words of one liberal should be used to criticize all liberals-especially the ones who explicity disagree with Dickerson-do and say"
Besides, this isn't a true statement. There are some on this very post that have stated her views are NOT unusual. On top of that, there was the example of the deaf University President who wasn't "deaf enough" for the deaf University. These are not "isolated incedents by single liberals," but something I see all the time. You are actually the "one liberal" voice.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"No one gives a flying flip about his lineage, they care about what he has to say!"
I wish I could believe this! If people really cared about what a candidate was saying, they would be able to know what they are saying, and I would bet a poll of 1000 Americans would show they were clueless.
What I find interesting is that the children in my class(fifth grade) really have no clue what the hubbub is about. It is a mostly-white community, but they were pretty unimpressed with the fact that two African American men coached the Super Bowl teams, etc. To them it is natural to watch the sports channels and see black and Latino players, Asian players, commentators of different heritage, all sharing the stage/field. They just don't see what I see, and I do not think it is because of lack of exposure to the issues. For them, it is the way it is.
posted
"These are not "isolated incedents by single liberals," but something I see all the time. You are actually the "one liberal" voice."
You are also making an assumption that all minority members, deaf, black, or whatever, are liberals. That is what it seems to me.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I wish I could believe this! If people really cared about what a candidate was saying, they would be able to know what they are saying, and I would bet a poll of 1000 Americans would show they were clueless."
Not only that, but why all the media hubbub or his own comments about his past in the first place? How many here, for instance (although I admit that Hatrack is a more conscious group) actually know what he stands for? For now he is simply, "that black candidate who represents a clean slate that I can pretend is filled with my own political agenda."
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, you are wrong Elizabeth. You are making an assumption about my assumption. I am not seeing your logical leap to that assumption anyway, other than as an emotional reaction. Although I "assume" you see the "something I see all the time" as reference to those groups rather than liberals as a whole.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stephen Colbert made this laughable issue the subject the other day and even he could not keep the left from looking wacky. I suspect it is a distinction started to keep Hillary from losing a wide swath of black democrat base (lets deny his 'blackness'... chuckle)
There are no former slaves living, so any person of color lives in the same reality of whatever prejudice remains, whether it is B. Hussein Obamma or that French guy on Gilmore Girls. To require 'True Blacks' to have a slave pedigree is reminiscent of the old racist laws requiring proof that your grandfather voted in order to qualify to vote, it is pure politically motivated racism.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
His website has a whole "Issues" section that explains in detail where he stands. Could it perhaps be that you haven't bothered to look?
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Except I don't find Fred Phelps as objectionable as you seem to expect. I think he is rather brash, but I can't say I think he is wrong
Fred Phelps is merely 'rather brash'?
quote:Besides, this isn't a true statement. There are some on this very post that have stated her views are NOT unusual. On top of that, there was the example of the deaf University President who wasn't "deaf enough" for the deaf University. These are not "isolated incedents by single liberals," but something I see all the time. You are actually the "one liberal" voice.
First of all, I'm not a liberal.
Second, I suppose 'deaf' equals 'liberal' then, from your words I'm quoting? Or is that just 'handicapped' equals 'liberal'? Or college students equal liberal, perhaps? One marvels at your methods for pigeonholing people into that label.
You can see something all the time in a nation with so many millions and so much mass media and easy communication, and still have it be quite isolated and not at all representative of the whole. But acknowledging that simple and obvious truth makes it more difficult to label and pigeonhole.
Put another way, if Fred Phelps is merely 'rather brash', then that's evidence enough that what you see and what actually is reality are two mutually exclusive things.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tarrsk, if you are refering to me I was talking about what the majority of people are thinking, and not what I am thinking. As to what his issues are? I admit to not knowing much, but he has said enough things about what he stands for to know I am not voting for him.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, you are wrong Elizabeth. You are making an assumption about my assumption. I am not seeing your logical leap to that assumption anyway, other than as an emotional reaction. Although I "assume" you see the "something I see all the time" as reference to those groups rather than liberals as a whole.
Oh, she is?
quote:On top of that, there was the example of the deaf University President who wasn't "deaf enough" for the deaf University. These are not "isolated incedents by single liberals," but something I see all the time.
Dude, you specifically linked deaf people with liberals. It's not an 'emotional reaction' to recognize what you plainly said.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Second, I suppose 'deaf' equals 'liberal' then, from your words I'm quoting?"
ummm . . . see my explanation above.
"First of all, I'm not a liberal."
"Yes, because as usual, the words of one liberal should be used to criticize all liberals-especially the ones who explicity disagree with Dickerson-do and say."
Ok, you got me there making assumptions. But, no more than what you and Elizabeth have about my own choice of words.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I linked THAT PARTICULAR GROUP OF DEAF PEOPLE with Liberals. As someone who is married to a person very familiar with the deaf culture, that University is predomanantly liberal. Then again, I suppose saying that University of Berkley is a liberal University is also a grevious assumption?
"Put another way, if Fred Phelps is merely 'rather brash', then that's evidence enough that what you see and what actually is reality are two mutually exclusive things."
Or, to put another way, what you determine as more than "rather brash" is your own personal opinion. Unless there is a legal term for "brash" and "rather brash" and "more than brash."
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
For those who are interested, I also found his book, The Audacity of Hope to be interesting. Even if I disagreed with all of his issues, I still would have found the insights in to what life is like as a senator to be worth the read.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
