posted
I saw this and with all the discussion of the upcoming elections and stuff I thought you guys might enjoy it. Description: Basically a black woman tells a white guy why the African American community doesn't consider Obama to be "black".
posted
Hillaryously pathetic campaign fodder: as if racists test AfricanAmerican kids for "slave genes". Cuz that's what the most negative side-effects of racism upon an individual come down to: Grow up as a favored-group member within a society, and the adult's assumption is that outrage-producing actions by an employer, a cop, a rental property owner, a loan officer, a store clerk, a taxi-driver, a waiter, etc is just the result of an individual being a jerk. Grow up as a member of a discrimated-against group, and the adult retains a strong suspicion that the outrage-producing individual was trained and is being encouraged by the powers-that-be to be mostly nice toward members of the "right"group and to be mostly a jerk toward members of the "wrong"group.
There ain't no such thing as slave genes. There ain't no such thing as racial memory. Obama was born and grew up in America: otherwise he couldn't run for President. So among the many many other things that form the adult personality, Obama grew through the BlackAmerican experience. ie Obama has as strong a claim to "being black" as anyone else born after 1960.
posted
That's exactly how I feel about this, Aspectre. Perhaps I won't be deleting the thread after all.
Personally, I don't see why they're using Obama's heritage against him, attacking him because none of his family was owned by a white man in the 1800's (or whatever the timeline was, I'm no history major). It's not like they were there. They don't know what it's like to be a slave. I'm sure they know what it's like to be discriminated against, because that is still very common even now. But I find it a little ridiculous to use the slavery argument when this man was probably around for the Civil Rights movement just like today's African Americans were. Also, wouldn't Obama also feel the slavery even just a little bit? After all, the people that were taken as slaves were from Africa and that's where his heritage lies. So, even if the people taken to America back then were not his ancestors, I'm sure that one way or another they were still his people. Besides, it's not like the white man didn't screw up Africa, the continent in and of itself, either. Many of the wars that are going on between the countries in Africa, as far as I'm concerned, were because there was a time when some blacks were - I can't remember if they were brought back from America or something - the point is that they were all grouped together when many of them belonged to different tribes and some of these didn't exactly like to drink tea with each other. Hence, lots of conflict started and continues with some of the wars that are still happening today.
(Back to the main subject now) Basically, I find it unfair and rather stupid to attack Obama if you're a black person. Would you rather have another white person in office? Seriously, do with what you have for now because that would be a MAJOR step into having a "real" black person elected. Or how we Mexicans put it: "Limosnera y con garrote." Put that into your fortune cookie.
posted
Things both Debra Dickerson and Irami have said lead me to believe it's both an attack on Barrack and on whites. But really what it is, is a defense of what black culture's perceived notion of what black culture is. That probably sounds confusing, and it's just my opinion, but Barrack says things that white people can get on board with, so as far as black culture is concerned, he's not really black. The part of black America that is attacking Barrack for this seems to think that white America is patting itself on the back because we're so pleased that we can vote for a black guy. Quite frankly I think they're a little full of themselves if they think that many white Americans even care that he's black. Which I should add, is a good thing. This heritage thing is meaningless. It's not like white people were gearing up to vote for him based on his heritage, no one even knew about it before now, and no one cared, or cares, except this group of black people.
Personally I don't take offense when someone like Debra Dickerson says she is really attacking white people, because her attack is baseless, and really makes no sense. It assumes that white people are proud of themselves for voting for a black man, and that his heritage has anything to do with it. Both of which are incredible leaps of logic.
So I'm left with the idea that this is infighting in the black community over african american identity. Does someone stop being black when they stop listening to DMX and start listening to Barry Manilow? Do they stop being black when they are born to East Africans instead of West Africans? Do they stop being black when they rise to the top of an organization of mostly white people, and champion "white issues?"
Debra Dickerson's issue isn't with me, or with Obama, it's with herself. When people aren't "black" enough for her, I think she proves herself to be a racist more than any of the people she's accusing.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry but Colbert suggesting that Obama being temporarily enslaved by maybe Al Sharpton to keep it unracist so that Obama could get the street credentials he needs to be "black" made laugh pretty hard.
I thought Colbert handled the topic really well, even after being challenged as racist.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That probably sounds confusing, and it's just my opinion, but Barrack says things that white people can get on board with, so as far as black culture is concerned, he's not really black. The part of black America that is attacking Barrack for this seems to think that white America is patting itself on the back because we're so pleased that we can vote for a black guy.
I think it's bit more involved than that. There is a belief that Obama hasn't taken on issues that black politicians are usually expected to talk about, and are immediately relevant to urban communities -- violent crime and educational problems are two examples.
Many people attribute his alleged "silence" on these issues to his background. They feel the world he grew up in while in Jakarta and Hawaii was markedly different from the one they did. And so, though he experienced the same individual racism that other blacks did (when he lived in the US), he didn't experience the problems that institutionalized racism left behind even after it crumbled -- specifically urban poverty, which is closely tied to education and crime rates. As a result, he doesn't come across as the leader many black Americans are looking for.
The absurdity of all this is in the fact that Obama spent several years as a community leader in Illinois and was aware of these issues, and his voting record certainly reflects this. He has not been silent on those issues. But that's not the Barack Obama most people are familiar with. And frankly, his genetics have nothing to do with any of that.
quote:Obama was born and grew up in America: otherwise he couldn't run for President.
Romney's dad was born in Mexico and still ran for president. Just Saying. I would vote for Obamba over him too.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Things both Debra Dickerson and Irami have said lead me to believe it's both an attack on Barrack and on whites. But really what it is, is a defense of what black culture's perceived notion of what black culture is. That probably sounds confusing, and it's just my opinion, but Barrack says things that white people can get on board with, so as far as black culture is concerned, he's not really black. The part of black America that is attacking Barrack for this seems to think that white America is patting itself on the back because we're so pleased that we can vote for a black guy. Quite frankly I think they're a little full of themselves if they think that many white Americans even care that he's black. Which I should add, is a good thing. This heritage thing is meaningless. It's not like white people were gearing up to vote for him based on his heritage, no one even knew about it before now, and no one cared, or cares, except this group of black people.
Personally I don't take offense when someone like Debra Dickerson says she is really attacking white people, because her attack is baseless, and really makes no sense. It assumes that white people are proud of themselves for voting for a black man, and that his heritage has anything to do with it. Both of which are incredible leaps of logic.
So I'm left with the idea that this is infighting in the black community over african american identity. Does someone stop being black when they stop listening to DMX and start listening to Barry Manilow? Do they stop being black when they are born to East Africans instead of West Africans? Do they stop being black when they rise to the top of an organization of mostly white people, and champion "white issues?"
Debra Dickerson's issue isn't with me, or with Obama, it's with herself. When people aren't "black" enough for her, I think she proves herself to be a racist more than any of the people she's accusing.
This is one of the problems with 'black pride' that I didn't mention in the other thread. People kept on wanting to equate it to pride in your heritage, but I think a lot of black pride goes beyond that when it tries to define what being black must mean. I have read a lot of black people that have gotten really annoyed by it, to say the least. They just want to be themselves and they have other black people telling them what they must be because of the color of their skin. Sad.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
