I've been an unabashed fan of Barack Obama since early 2004, and I believe that his presidential election will usher in a era of thoughtful dignity and goodness that has the positive qualities often attributed to the coming of the Messiah. I say this all in the way of a qualification because I don't understand when people say that they agree with his approach and appreciate his intellect, candor, and ethics, but just don't think he'll be ready in 2008, and that he'll should wait until 2012.
Now, good people say this. My question is this, what about him needs to mature? He would be 47 near 48 by the inauguration, so its not his age. The man taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, so the issue isn't his knowledge of this American government. At thirty, he wrote a morally compelling and considered memoir, and while I don't think it is as pointed as Profiles in Courage- and I don't like memoirs in general- the book is arresting and thoughtful and not written "with" anybody, because I have on good authority that those books written by people "with" people, the "with" people do a lion's share of the writing and thinking.
The knocks on Bush before the 2000 elections concerned his stupidity, and I fully believe that his lack of imagination influences his policies foreign and domestic to such a degree that this want may be considered a moral fault.
With respect to Clinton, his problems concerned his lechery, as a man willing to cheat on his wife may be willing to cheat on anything.
Nobody expected Bush or Clinton to grow out of their problems. It was not as if the people said, "Well, give Bush another four years, and he'll gain a deeper sense of imagination." Bush and Clinton were considered grown men with the faults commonly attributed to grown men. Somehow Barack Obama is viewed as a child, and here is the big surprise, I think it has everything in the world to do with his race, and I think that people who say he needs more "seasoning" mean that he needs to attain some of the infelicities commonly associated with white male leaders, either he needs to become bland, a dope or otherwise corrupt. Its not that he isn't competent, even exemplary, its just that he doesn't feel white(where those qualities somehow equal maturity) enough and I think these people think that four years more years as a senator will make him sufficiently dull and business-minded. He doesn't lack character or knowledge, his problem is that he doesn't feel like Dr. Phil.
I haven't brought this up in conversation because I'm still fleshing this out, but since this is a heavily influenced LDS board, I figured it was a good place to try out what I believe is my theory. Until a revelation in 1978, black people were considered children in the eyes of God. That the assertion is obviously racist doesn't bother me. It's something that the church should be ashamed of, and I'll leave it at that. Mostly, I think that the church was tapping into the cultural conscience of its time and expressed in doctrine that which was latent in America at the time.
Now the church fixed this by way of a revelation, but it doesn't mean that the meme, or zeit geist, or whatever still doesn't exist in America. Whatever the reasons for this, I think the result is that a perfectly competent individual is still not taken as a viable presidential contender on his own terms, but rather, he is considered a child. Its one issue to disagree with him, quite another to condescend, and I think saying that "I respect almost everything he says and how he says it, but I think he needs four more years as a Senator," is condescending.
[ February 07, 2006, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Who is condescending?
This is a serious question. You are linking those who say he isn't ready to the LDS church. Are the two linked only in your own mind?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
The LDS church is just an example of a uniquely American institution that considered black people perpetual children. I think the doctrine was a product of a pervasive sentiment so latent and woven into white American culture that it happened to be given form in the religious doctrine. Its not that big of a deal. The doctrine was an effect, not a cause. The problem is I think the cause still lives in American discourse and thought.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I like what I've read of Obama. It remains to be seen whether or not he appeals to a wider demographic than his current constituency, though. I don't think he gets much press time outside of Illinois.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I think when people say he needs to grow more, they mean he needs to become more prominent nationally- to be in the political scene a little longer. Not so much that he isn't ready for the job now, but that he hasn't been in politics long enough to win if he runs now.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Honestly, I think the reason people think of Obama as "youthful" is the same reason people thought of John Edwards as "youthful:" neither of them have been in office long, and they're both good-looking.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Irami-
I think you're drastically oversimplifying LDS perspective on race prior to 1978. Is it just your opinion that the church held a paternalistic view of blacks, or do you have some official declarations/doctrine to point to?
I think the feeling that Obama needs seasoning is largely of his own doing. Immediately upon becoming a superstar of the Democratic party in 2004, he emphasized that he's entering as a first-year senator with lots to learn. And he has a point. For the past 40 years, Americans have shown a preference for Presidents that have proven capable at managing, particularly managing large bureaucracies. Maybe that's the vanilla corruption you're talking about, and I certainly have little love for bureaucrats and managers, but the federal government is currently a hugely complex institution, and navigating it takes a certain degree of experience that the junior senator from Illinois just doesn't have. For that matter, any presidential hopeful should probably steer clear of the senate. The last president elected directly from the senate? Kennedy, more that 50 years ago.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
and Kennedy opened up a can of whoop-ass! Seriously, no other president kicked as much ass as Kennedy.
As for my thoughts on children they taste good.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I like what I've read of Obama. It remains to be seen whether or not he appeals to a wider demographic than his current constituency, though. I don't think he gets much press time outside of Illinois.
He certainly does in Seattle, but that might be because we're home to the Rabid Liberal Movement. He certainly does in Hawaii, but that might be because he was raised there and Hawaii residents like to latch onto whatever amount of celebrity they can (*cough*TRIAS*cough*).
quote:Honestly, I think the reason people think of Obama as "youthful" is the same reason people thought of John Edwards as "youthful:" neither of them have been in office long, and they're both good-looking.
True story. That, and Obama really DOES look young - at first glance, I wouldn't have put him over 35.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
I'm with Tom. When I first became acquainted with Obama as a politician, I liked his stance on pretty much everything. When I first saw his picture, I immediately thought, "Wow, he looks young!" I remember being surprised that someone who looked so young could be so wise. He may not be young, but he does have an attractive, youthful face, which can be a detriment when you're trying to get people to take you seriously.
I don't think anyone would say that Colin Powell needs to grow up more, for intance. But, like Tom mentioned, John Edwards has the same "problem" as Obama.
I don't think it has anything to do with race, and I honestly don't think denying black men the priesthood had anything at all to do with considering them children. Really. I think you're way off base here, and I'll leave it at that. I do agree that I wish it had never been an issue in the LDS church.
Maybe Obama should spend lots of time tanning so his face gets all leathery. And also dye his hair gray.
Regardless of whether he did this, if he got through the primaries, I would definitely vote for him for president.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
See I think he just looks younger than he actually is. I would have guessed mid to late 30s, as opposed to mid 40s.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I think it's more similar to the initial distrust many people upon going to a doctor and finding him/her to be younger-looking than a doctor "should" look. We expect maturity to look mature, because so many of us depend on our visual cues to make decisions for us.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Obama has my vote, too. I don't think he's too young or too inexperienced.
As for the priesthood ban, I have a number of theories about that, none of which have anything to do with perpetual childhood. There's no doubt at all, though, that mature and even elderly blacks were treated as children in the U.S. when I was a child. The use of first names, for instance, is evidence of that. Reinforcing that was the lack of education of many blacks, which was not optional, for the most part, since educational opportunities simply didn't exist for blacks.
So I think you have a case, in other words. You may even convince me to add that to my list of theories.
My theories: 1) Racism, pure and simple. Despite being led by God, church leaders are human as we all are, and they can't hear answers to questions that they do not ask.
2) Krista's theory is that it was punishment for our former racism, that God wanted to teach us a lesson, and embarrass us by not letting us do this for so long after it became obvious even to us that we should.
3) Service. The priesthood can be thought of as a crash course in serving others. It's not about wielding personal power in any way. It's about being awakened at 3am and asked to drive across town to give a blessing to a sick child. It's about giving up 2 years of your young life to the service of your fellow humans. It's about learning how to subsume your own desires into the common good, and the good of your family.
My theory is that women don't have the priesthood now, and black men did not have it before 1978, because society was set up in such a way that we got plentiful opportunity and encouragement to learn service to others without it. White males before 1978, and all males now, would be left in the dust, so to speak, in spiritual growth, without the priesthood, because they generally are not expected and trained to serve others willingly and lovingly, for huge portions of their lives.
I like that theory, because it recognizes the truth that loving service elevates us, and puts us in a privileged position, spiritually, relative to those we serve. The world looks and thinks the one being served is the privileged one. God sees differently. God sees the real truth. Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Did you know, Irami, that Joseph Smith had a good friend who was black and who had the priesthood from the earliest days of the church? Apparently he and his descendants have held the priesthood continually, ban or no ban, from the very beginning. I wonder if Arthur Stewart (in the Alvin Maker books) is modeled after that man? I just found that out not long ago, and I don't have much information about it. For instance, I don't know the name of the family.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Krista's theory is that it was punishment for our former racism, that God wanted to teach us a lesson, and embarrass us by not letting us do this for so long after it became obvious even to us that we should.
That's an interesting one.
I would tend to agree with Blacwolve: that "he needs to become more prominent nationally- to be in the political scene a little longer. Not so much that he isn't ready for the job now, but that he hasn't been in politics long enough to win if he runs now." Of course, I do think there's plenty of time for him to become more recognized between now and the elections - if he has enough support and gets enough exposure.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
JennaDean, there's another theory that it happened at the earliest moment it possibly could. That God gives us the doctrine we're ready for, and before 1978 the white members of the church were not ready to accept blacks in the priesthood.
We can only guess at the reasons, of course, and it may be a combination of all these things, or it may be some completely different reason totally beyond our current understanding.
So until I learn better, I'll stick with my theory #3. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
That's not remotely close to the vibe I get, Irami. Everything I have heard in this vein is simply that he just won his first major office, and he needs time to come to greater national prominence, and to develop a congressional record, before he's electable on a national level. I don't think his actual maturity is in question at all.
-o-
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: and Kennedy opened up a can of whoop-ass! Seriously, no other president kicked as much ass as Kennedy.
Name one good thing he ever did. Besides runaway inflation and betraying the civil rights movement. And betraying a free Cuba.
Oh wait, what am I thinking. Of course: he was young. He was good looking. He was a martyr.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Arthur Stewart (in the Alvin Maker books) is modeled after that man?
No-- OSC has purportedly said that Arthur Stuart is pseudo-analogous to Brigham Young.
quote:Joseph Smith had a good friend who was black and who had the priesthood from the earliest days of the church? Apparently he and his descendants have held the priesthood continually, ban or no ban, from the very beginning.
I'd like to see a link for this, Tatiana. I know that Joseph gave the priesthood to a black man named Abraham (I think) Something-or-other, but I didn't know they were 'good friends.'
I think such a fact would be disseminated in Church literature everywhere the publication/public relations folks could fit it in...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I believe she's referring to Elijah Abel, an undertaker who was a friend of Smith's in Nauvoo. He was one of the Seventy, and his son Enoch was ordained as an Elder; his grandson Elijah was also permitted the Priesthood.
No idea why.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
He made executive orders to do the following:
To take away the ability of the CIA to stage independant operations and put it within the realm of the army.
He did not support the Bay of Pigs invasion which simply would've toppled one Communist government and replaced with with a facist government.
He sent in the 101 Airborn to escourt black students into white universities.
He also ordered the preliminary stages for a FULL pull out from Vietnam before the escalation.
He aimed to end the cold war by his second term.
He prevented nuclear war.
His Brother began a campaign against organized crime.
He was assasinated by the CIA hands down.
How did he betray the civil rights movement?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
He lowered taxes. He started the space program.
A pox on you for making me defend a kennedy.
The Cuban missile crisis wouldn't have happened if he had supported the bay of pigs. He didn't prevent nuclear war so much as take us to the brink.
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
NASA dates to 1958, and I believe we were working on a space program before that.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
He started the space program. You got me there. *nod*
EDIT: That is to say, he made the push for the moon.
He was an economic disaster.
Batista was in no way, shape, or form a fascist. And he would never have been in power had he not been propped up by the US in the first place. Blayne, you should look up the word "fascist." It does not mean "not communist." Seriously, using that word here undermines the teeny credibility you might have.
He averted a nuclear war he helped bring us to the brink of by exceeding his authority and making a promise in perpetuity over the actions of other presidents. And all for what? The Soviets' promise to withdraw their weapons.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Ok, my bad. So he energized the space program =)
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: JennaDean, there's another theory that it happened at the earliest moment it possibly could. That God gives us the doctrine we're ready for, and before 1978 the white members of the church were not ready to accept blacks in the priesthood.
Yeah, I've thought about that theory and decided I don't really buy it. I mean they were supposedly all members of the Church because they believed it was led by God, and the majority of them were abolitionists, and they had already accepted some very unique doctrines - I just find it hard to believe that this people would not have been able to accept equality among the races. Or that God would care - I mean when people didn't agree with the doctrines before, they just left the Church, they didn't get Him to change the doctrines to suit people. That's been the whole point of the Church, IMO.
So I'm going with the "completely different reason totally beyond our current understanding", for now. (Which may include your theory #3.) I also acknowledge the fact that never in the history of the world (until now) has the priesthood been given to ALL worthy males. It's always been restricted to some group or lineage. That doesn't explain why, but it does remind me that the Priesthood is God's to give as He sees fit, and there is a precedent for Him withholding it from various groups before. Really, the fact that He would give it to ALL men is more unique than the fact that He would exclude certain peoples from holding it.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Somehow Barack Obama is viewed as a child, and here is the big surprise, I think it has everything in the world to do with his race, and I think that people who say he needs more "seasoning" mean that he needs to attain some of the infelicities commonly associated with white male leaders, either he needs to become bland, a dope or otherwise corrupt. Its that he isn't competent, even exemplary, its just that he doesn't feel white(where those qualities somehow equal maturity) enough and I think these people think that four years in the senator will make him sufficiently dull and business-minded.
Doesn't it make more sense to conclude that people think he needs more "seasoning" for the exact same reason Kennedy was thought to be too young - because he lacks extensive experience and just generally looks young?
I also think that one of the biggest race problems (if not the biggest race problem) in America today is the perception of racism in situations where it is not occuring. People, especially members of minorities, seem to see racism where it is not, and thus feel discriminated against and suffer as a result - sometimes to the point of inhibiting their own success.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I just find it hard to believe that this people would not have been able to accept equality among the races.
There's a large gulf between "This man should not have to submit his will to mine just because he's a different color," and "This man is my brother."
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
What a suprise.....
Irami claims that the reason is bigotry.
I mean bigotry other than his own, of course.... Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Its the conditioning in the states me thinks to call blacks "uncle" or "son" even if they're older then you. Up here in Canada we umm well we don't know what we do they're just people like evryone else.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
quote:Its the conditioning in the states me thinks to call blacks "uncle" or "son" even if they're older then you. Up here in Canada we umm well we don't know what we do they're just people like evryone else.
Huh? I have never run into this. Maybe, maybe in the South.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Wow....where do people come up with the stuff? While I've seen discrimination alive and well in this country (and seen the pain is causes those very close to me who are discriminated against) I haven't seen anybody calling black people Son or Uncle. Closest thing I've seen that even approaches this is young white suburbanites using words that are traditionally used by blacks. And to me that's the complete opposite- emulation being the highest form of flattery and all that.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I'm pretty sure its int he deep south myself I read it in a book. But its possible it could've planted itself subconsiously on the american consiousnes.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Honestly, I think the reason people think of Obama as "youthful" is the same reason people thought of John Edwards as "youthful:" neither of them have been in office long, and they're both good-looking.
The guy spent seven years as an Illinois state senator before resigning to serve at the national level. By 2008, that'd be eleven years of serving the public trust in an elected office, moonlighting as a constitutional law teacher and civil rights attorney. And Illinois isn't the smallest or simplest state in the Union.
quote:Name one good thing he[Kennedy] ever did.
The guy started the peace corp on the strength of a speech. That's pretty much the apex of political action in a free democracy. More generally, he made a large segment of a generation want to be better people. To me, that's more important than balancing the budget. On the side, I think he should get into the annals of history for writing Profiles in Courage, which, in and of itself, is a wonderful contribution to the long conversation of America.
Hey, you all, I know about Joseph Smith's black priesthood friend, and that's why I leveled the claims against the church and not the man who founded it. Again this is not that big of a deal- that is unless you think that the church is true, then I imagine it would be a big deal- but as I am one who believes that the church is and was a product of its time, the policies and doctrines just announced the clearest wisdom its founders.
quote:I think you're drastically oversimplifying LDS perspective on race prior to 1978. Is it just your opinion that the church held a paternalistic view of blacks, or do you have some official declarations/doctrine to point to?
I had in my mind a mix of how members of the church speak about the view of blacks prior to 1978, then textually, I was thinking about Young's speech on Slavery, blacks, and the priesthood, where Young says that God will take the mark of Cain off of black people when they are ready.
quote:Doesn't it make more sense to conclude that people think he needs more "seasoning" for the exact same reason Kennedy was thought to be too young - because he lacks extensive experience and just generally looks young?
I also think that one of the biggest race problems (if not the biggest race problem) in America today is the perception of racism in situations where it is not occuring. People, especially members of minorities, seem to see racism where it is not, and thus feel discriminated against and suffer as a result - sometimes to the point of inhibiting their own success.
The thing is, not only does he not lack experience, he doesn't look young to me. He looks like a forty five year old guy. He looks his age, the board can take this as it wants, but I think the reason he looks looks so young to you all is because a whole lot of white people age hard. ________
Now it could be that I'm seeing something that's not there. This isn't something that is easily tested, and I'm not above making a mistake in areas so nebulous as the American conventional wisdom. In the coming years, everybody keep your eyes and ears open.
For the record, I believe this to be the case first hand, as my readiness for a given task or job has been challenged so many times at so many levels because I didn't seem white enough that I've picked up a myriad of virtues and vices that are related solely to this phenomenon. And again, maybe its in my head, but I don't think that's the case. More importantly, this thread is not about me or the LDS church, it's about whence the perceptions that Barack Obama, despite everything he has said or done, doesn't yet seem able.
[ February 08, 2006, 12:24 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: And Illinois isn't the smallest or simplest state in the Union.
Nope, just one of the most corrupt.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Illinois corruption is something to behold. Instead of feeling like large organized graft. It's like small town corruption writ ludicrously large.
A quick question about grammar: I never know when to use nor. I have contradicting instincts.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
I get confused at times about what the American people want.
Kennedy got elected, in large part, because he was our first TV president. He won debates on looks, and I'm suspecting that this is a combination of both attractiveness and positive body language.
I think that Bush is in office, in large part, due to his "looks" as well. Many people prefered him because he just seemed like someone they'd want to sit down and have a beer with. Neither Gore nor Kerry were that kind of attractive to most people.
My theory is that the "looks" of the final two candidates play a huge role in their electability and youthful appearance is a plus at this stage.
The question is how to get Obama into the "finals".
Most viable candidates come from the ranks of state governors. A state governor can rightly say that he/she has undertaken most of the tasks that will be required of a president, albeit on a smaller scale. The American people can point to their record and extrapolate what to expect of a them as a president.
The same isn't true of a senator. The learning curve between senator and president is much greater.
In any case, I'd be surprised if Obama becomes president. Not because of his appearance, but because of his career path.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:as my readiness for a given task or job has been challenged so many times at so many levels because I didn't seem white enough that I've picked up a myriad of virtues and vices that are related solely to this phenomenon
Irami, you seem immature because you're a naive bigot. No one wants you to be "whiter;" they just don't want you to be arrogant.
Obama looks VERY young; compare him to Denzel Washington, for example, at the same age. (And, as I said earlier, compare him to fifty-year-old John Edwards, who looks barely out of diapers.) And he's only been on the national stage for two years, regardless of how long he's been working in the relative anonymity of the Illinois Senate.
If you have to see racism behind every shadow, feel free. But keep in mind that the prejudice here is yours, and it will prevent you from ever understanding people who don't share your skin color.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:I never know when to use nor. I have contradicting instincts.
I think I only use it when I've already used "neither" earlier in the sentence.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
About John Edwards, the claims against him were never that he needs more seasoning to be president, rather, that he looks young and cute. I didn't hear anyone say, "I like John Edwards. I agree with John Edwards. But I just don't think that he is ready yet. I'll vote for him in four years." What I heard was that people liked John Edwards and were ready to vote for him. Or folks like OSC who didn't like John Edwards and wouldn't have voted for him in 2004, 2008, or ever.
My days of worrying about seeming immature finished years ago. One of the perks of writing my own check and not seeking public office is that I don't have to concern myself with seeming anything to anybody. The big damage was done from 8-20, when I was half as bigoted and twice as diffident.
quote: No one wants you to be "whiter;" they just don't want you to be arrogant.
Nope, I'm pretty sure they wanted me to be whiter. What a tricksy term that is. It would take 100 years to get an agreement on what that adverb connotes.
[ February 07, 2006, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Irami,
Did you know that it in business, it's also a huge liability to be short?
Prejudice exists, but IME, it is generally trumped by talent.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I'd hate to be short. Then again, I imagine that Tresopax would say that most of the stigma working against short businessmen is in their head, which perpetuates less than optimal results.
I don't know enough about talent and the ways of the world to know whether pure talent trumphs circumstance. I do know that pure talent, like most things pure, strikes me as attending some social abberration and insanity. Where as those who achieve by circumstance seem to have the room to be agreeable, even affable. That said, that Obama is comfortably over six feet tall makes him much more electable, a circumstance for which I am grateful.
[ February 07, 2006, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Nope, I'm pretty sure they wanted me to be whiter. What a tricksy term that is. It would take 100 years to get an agreement on what that adverb connotes.
Which makes it especially easy for you to claim that you've been the victim of racism, if we let you come up with the definition.
Seriously, Irami, Obama's issue is NOT his race. If anything, so far, his race has actually been a political asset to him. It's that he's a junior senator in a country that doesn't like to elect senators at all.
That said, I think he could get past the "inexperience" label pretty easily if he tried. And given the way the field in 2008 happens to look, I'd be a little disappointed if his name weren't floated. But, hey, there's nothing wrong with spending some time on the national stage first, either -- except of course that creating a voting record nowadays only gives your opponents ammunition.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Seriously, Irami, Obama's issue is NOT his race. If anything, so far, his race has actually been a political asset to him. It's that he's a junior senator in a country that doesn't like to elect senators at all.
I also think that his race is a political asset, prima facie, but I think that his unabashed blackness will provoke more indirect concerns. I'm waiting for this one, "I like Obama. I'd vote for Obama. The problem is that I don't want him to get assassinated, so I'll vote for [insert WASP]." That'll be funny, because it'll seem the humanitarian thing to do. Now I'm presaging these conversations, and I'll probably be too tired when they come up to say, "I told you so," but you'll know and I'll know, when you hear your friend or family or local opinion column editor float that sentiment off-hand, it's nothing but sideways paternalism with a bit of racism to support it.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:I'm pretty sure its int he deep south myself I read it in a book. But its possible it could've planted itself subconsiously on the american consiousnes.
Hey Blayne, before you move to China, I think you should travel around North America. You really are missing an education. I especially invite you to visit the southern states in the US.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
quote:And given the way the field in 2008 happens to look, I'd be a little disappointed if his name weren't floated.
Given that Hillary is only a senator and has less presence/character, IMO, than Obama, if she ends up being the Democrat's selection, I'll be very disappointed. (Read that as disgusted enough to change parties.)
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I'm guessing that Hillary is going to win the nomination, which will pretty much give the election to the Republicans.
So I'm going for pure entertainment value and hoping for a Clinton v. Rice race in '08.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Al Sharpton, Colin Powell, Jesse Jackson... do these people look young? Being black does not make you look like a child.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
quote:Then again, I imagine that Tresopax would say that most of the stigma working against short businessmen is in their head, which perpetuates less than optimal results.
From Blink by Malcom Gladwell:
quote:Of the tens of millions of American men below five foot six, a grand total of ten in my sample have reached the levels of CEO, which says that being short is probably as much of a handicap to corporate success as being a woman or an African American.
quote:Not long ago, researchers who analyzed the data from four large research studies that had followed thousands of people from birth to adulthood calculated that when corrected for such variables as age and gender and weight, an inch of height is worth $789 a year in salary. That means that a person who is six feet tall but otherwise identical to someone who is five foot five will make an average of $5,525 more per year.
I quote this to show that it is a widespread problem and to note that if you simply chalk-it- up to poor self-esteem, you may as well be saying that the lower income levels of African Americans and women can also be blamed on poor self-esteem.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Ladydove, I agree.
Tresopax, this is one of those times where I don't get the flow of your thought. Al Sharpton, Colin Powell, and Jesse Jackson all look their age. But I do think that being black makes you seem "not quite ready." I imagine that its similar to being a woman. I also think that being conservative makes one seem more mature. I'm sure this is true even when being conservative meant endorsing all manners of evils. That Obama is black and relatively liberal, I believe, add to the perception that he needs time to mature. If he were short, black, and liberal, then it would be all the more difficult.
There are many problems associated with being considered perpetually "not quite ready" and trying to overcompensate with talent, even if you succeed.
[ February 07, 2006, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But I do think that being black makes you seem "not quite ready."
Why? What are your data points on this?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Does Obama have any chance at winning the governorship in Illinois? Senators have a very tough row to hoe. Hillary will back in from here "white house" experience if she makes it.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Nope, no data. I'm just going to go with my two eyes and ears. Of course, your mileage may vary.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:But I do think that being black makes you seem "not quite ready."
My flow of thought is this: There are numerous examples that contradict this claim, and so far the only example you've given that is consistent with it is Obama - in whose case there are also far simpler explanations for why he is perceived as not quite ready. Hence, it's not a very good explanation for why Obama seems not quite ready.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
See, I think Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Colin Powell look their age for black men, but that white guys 53, 63, and 70 don't look nearly as healthy. I, personally, think that thirty and forty five are particularly telling ages, between white men, black men, and asian men. Is this thread really going to be about how white men age hard, 'cause they do, and that should be neither surprising or terribly insightful.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Irami,
I think the problem is that you are trying to make the argument that all but the visual representation of Obama is being ignored in the decision to "season" him before having him run for president.
There just doesn't seem to be enough evidence to support the claim.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Nope, I am saying that those people who understand Obama as needing seasoning didn't understand Clinton, Bush, or Edwards as needing seasoning. Clinton's, Bush's, and Edwards faults or virtues were considered fully developed faults or virtues. Even Dan Quayle, as a young VP, wasn't considered a president who needed seasoning. Dan Quayle was Dan Quayle, young, cute, and fully developed as Dan Quayle. These guys were all considered developed, for better or ill, at the time they were on the public stage. Nobody said, "Quayle, I agree with him. He has everything that a president should have. He just needs a little more time." EIther Quayle was a dope or Quayle was acceptable, but he wasn't considered in under-ripe.
Obama's unique position is that even in 2004, four years away from 2008, when he had said and did everything right and looked forward to saying and doing everything right for another four years, people were saying that he is going to need an addition four years. That's what perplexes and disturbs me. Again, with all of the other candidates who had a hard time being taken seriously because they were young or young looking, they were still not expected to somehow ripen later. Clinton, Quayle, and Edwards were supposed to age, not mature. I'm done belaboring this point. If I can't make it any clearer than I've made it, then I'm not up to making this argument.
[ February 08, 2006, 12:26 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm not up to making this argument.
Or it could be largely baseless.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Hmm... Does it strengthen Irami's argument that I, as a foreigner who have only heard about Obama here at Hatrack and Ornery (and read a couple of his speeches linked from here), and never having seen a picture of him, would have guessed him to be in the lower thirties before Irami mentioned his true age?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
No, it would be indicative of you misinterpreting "needs seasoning" to be about age rather than national-level prominence.
The ridiculous thing about all this is that the argument that Edwards was a terrible choice (in terms of electibility) because of his inexperience was made, and all over the place, and now Irami is pretending it was not.
Also, I don't think anybody is saying "I won't vote for Obama until he has more experience." What they're saying is "I don't think Obama can win right now, because he has not been around long enough for the more apathetic/uneducated voters to know his name." If you believe that he won't win--and that he can win given four (or eight) more years of exposure--then it seems prudent to wait a bit.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Once again, Icarus proves to be wise, exacting, and overall, a good Joe.
Maggie-dittos to what he said.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
I only wanted to comment on age markers of different races.
Different peoples age differently and in different ways, with specific racial features. Oh, sure, they have the same overall changes- grey hair, shrinkage, wrinkles, etc. And to be sure, hard living (or even moderately hard living) can add years regardless of race. But the fact is that people of different races age differently identifiable ways, especially during that 30-60 stage.
Of course all this is purely anecdotal, but I'd be pretty confident that it represents the general facts. I have friends who are black and in their 40's. But you'd have to ask them their age to actually know it. And these are friends from places as varied as Alabama, California, and Maryland. Heck, my grandmother, who is black (from Eritrea, next to Ethiopia) is only now starting to look her age- mid 70's. For as long as I've known her, she looked nebulously in her 50's. Of course, she's relatively healthy- her diet and lifestyle as a Muslim was no doubt an asset. Whereas my paternal grandparents (white) definitely looked their age (mainly due to smoking.)
I'm sure similar observations could be made about Asian people, just off the top of my head, though I can't comment personally on it. And I'd be more definite about the Navajo people, at least, and Native Americans in general.
So to Irami, of course Obama looks his age. You are used to seeing age markers on black people. So you have to believe that that statement is a lie and hides some latent racism. Whereas, many white people have a harder time seeing age markers on other races and may honestly believe he is younger than he is.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Irami,
I've had the privlege of voting for Mr. Obama twice, I worked for his campaign, heck, I'm even on his Christmas card list. Believe me when I say that I understand your impatience. I can't wait to vote for him for president. But I think your reasoning here is wrong.
John Edwards inexperience was an issue in the last election - remember the debate with Cheney? Remember the comparisons to a bulldog (rottweiler?) and a collie pup. To some that made Edwards more likeable, to others it made him seem like an inexperienced lightweight. This is perhaps forgivable in a VP candidate. For a presidential candidate in a fearful, security-hungry country - not a chance.
Mr. Obama himself has said many time that that he has a lot to learn about Washington. He himself has pointed to his lack of experience. Nobody knew who he was two years ago. More importantly he has promised over and over again to serve a full term as senator, both during the campaign and since. Most recently on "Meet the Press" a couple of weeks ago. Much as want to see him as President, I don't want him to break his word.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Huh? I have never run into this. Maybe, maybe in the South.
You won't run into it in the South either. Not the south I've lived in my entire life, at least.
quote:Much as want to see him as President, I don't want him to break his word.
Yeah, cause breaking his word would be so unusual in a politician. (that by the way is a snarky comment directed at all politicians, not Obama in particular)
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Yeah, I meant to comment on that. I have lived in Florida, South Carolina, and Tennessee, and I have not seen that either. I've seen the occasional example of racism, but not this pervasive stuff Blayne claims. (And although he backed off on it slightly, he didn't state it as a question, or as if he were not certain. He took it as a given that this is how things are in the US, and contrasted it with Canada.)
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:I'm pretty sure its int he deep south myself I read it in a book. But its possible it could've planted itself subconsiously on the american consiousnes.
What book did you read this in? Like Belle, I am a Southerner and I've never heard any black people addressed as "Uncle" or "Son" by anyone other than their nephews or fathers. I would certainly never think to address a black person I haven't been introduced to as anything other than "Sir" or "Ma'am."
I don't think you should make sweeping generalizations about a place you have never visited. Particularly when those generalizations are based on something you read in some book. I also don't think you can speak for every Canadian - I doubt racism is unknown there.
This is a hot button for me. I'm so very tired of people assuming I'm a racist redneck just because I'm from the South. To disavow you of some of your other notions - I'm Jewish (yes, there are Jews in the South and have been since before the Revolutionary War), my next-door neighbors are black, my pediatrician is a black Republican, two of my neonatologists are Indian (and no, I don't mean Native American - they're from India), and I have Japanese and Indian cousins. Please take some time to question the validity of your views of the South.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle:
quote:Much as want to see him as President, I don't want him to break his word.
Yeah, cause breaking his word would be so unusual in a politician. (that by the way is a snarky comment directed at all politicians, not Obama in particular) [/QB]
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)