Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by Accountable »

Eugene Robinson: Can Obama deliver the black vote?

Harold Meyerson: Latino voters may make the difference for California Democrats on Election Day

This crap makes me so mad I could spit!
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by Ahso! »

Accountable;1338739 wrote: Eugene Robinson: Can Obama deliver the black vote?

Harold Meyerson: Latino voters may make the difference for California Democrats on Election Day

This crap makes me so mad I could spit! Why?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12945
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by LarsMac »

"Pendulum swings, like a pendulum do..."
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
flopstock
Posts: 7406
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 2:52 am

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by flopstock »

I don't think it will be easy times getting past color, gender or sexual orientation despite all our back patting pride in our own acceptance of those who are different from us.
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.

Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6

Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by Ahso! »

flopstock;1338785 wrote: I don't think it will be easy times getting past color, gender or sexual orientation despite all our back patting pride in our own acceptance of those who are different from us.Nor should it be necessary to get past it. The fact is that it's quite natural to discriminate when we are choosing the father or mother best suited for our offspring, the problem arises when we discriminate financially or otherwise. We have an obligation to respect every living person IMO.

As humans we have difficulty distinguishing what it is going on within us. Our genes are directing us to discriminate on one level and our brain on another, but since we refuse to acknowledge the fact that we are gene driven biologically, we become confused and make a mess of things by over analyzing, overreacting or over moralizing.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by koan »

"the black vote" "the feminist vote" etc... these are political analyst lingo terms. The terms arose out of statistical studies performed by highly paid individuals who are good at assessing trends. So, I'd guess that when people stop voting or acting in categorical fashions then they'll stop referring to them that way. We also have the "farmer vote" and groups that aren't based on gender or race. We'll still be left with those.
User avatar
Lon
Posts: 9476
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:38 pm

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by Lon »

Don't forget the SENIOR VOTE. There are many of them, many affluent, and a very high percentage of them vote.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15981
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Accountable;1338739 wrote: Eugene Robinson: Can Obama deliver the black vote?

Harold Meyerson: Latino voters may make the difference for California Democrats on Election Day

This crap makes me so mad I could spit!


For as long as a politician can promise to promote the well being of one group over those of another, or it is perceived that he will, you'll get group voting in elections.

As far as I can see, that will happen for as long as the setting of policy is out of the hands of those we elect to "represent" us. when you're not voting for their policies, their influence is all they have left.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by Ahso! »

Or at least recognize and speak to the perceived needs of a group.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by Accountable »

koan;1338796 wrote: "the black vote" "the feminist vote" etc... these are political analyst lingo terms. The terms arose out of statistical studies performed by highly paid individuals who are good at assessing trends. So, I'd guess that when people stop voting or acting in categorical fashions then they'll stop referring to them that way. We also have the "farmer vote" and groups that aren't based on gender or race. We'll still be left with those.


Bryn Mawr;1338812 wrote: For as long as a politician can promise to promote the well being of one group over those of another, or it is perceived that he will, you'll get group voting in elections.

As far as I can see, that will happen for as long as the setting of policy is out of the hands of those we elect to "represent" us. when you're not voting for their policies, their influence is all they have left.
It's the grouping by color rather than an actual meaningful category that I object to. "Black" does not mean all black people, and "Latino" spans such a diverse and disparate group that it's meaningless to anyone interested in anything beyond the most superficial stereotypes.

Those stereotypes say that all Blacks and Latinos are uneducated, penniless, and dependent on government largess for survival. It ignores the facts that Americans of every hue and ethnic group occupy all strata of society, and that most uneducated, penniless, dependent people are white.

I would much rather hear them talk about going after the poor vote, the urban vote, or any number of other categories without relying on old, false, racist stereotypes.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by koan »

Accountable;1338859 wrote: It's the grouping by color rather than an actual meaningful category that I object to. "Black" does not mean all black people, and "Latino" spans such a diverse and disparate group that it's meaningless to anyone interested in anything beyond the most superficial stereotypes.

Those stereotypes say that all Blacks and Latinos are uneducated, penniless, and dependent on government largess for survival. It ignores the facts that Americans of every hue and ethnic group occupy all strata of society, and that most uneducated, penniless, dependent people are white.

I would much rather hear them talk about going after the poor vote, the urban vote, or any number of other categories without relying on old, false, racist stereotypes.


I disagree. I think there are specific issues that are of more interest to black voters and other issues that affect Latinos and specific issues that affect the votes of gays and those for women etc.

I think you're reading the condescension into it.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by Ahso! »

koan;1338860 wrote: I disagree. I think there are specific issues that are of more interest to black voters and other issues that affect Latinos and specific issues that affect the votes of gays and those for women etc.

I think you're reading the condescension into it.For example, there are many health related issues where the incidence is much higher among blacks, so its no wonder health care would be particularly important to the black vote.

The Latino part is an easy call due to immigration.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by koan »

I would guess that any changes to the criminal system would be more relevant to them as well as they tend to receive harsher penalties than whites, statistically.

I read today that black women were way more susceptible to maternal death than white women in the US, to back up the health issue point.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by Accountable »

koan;1338860 wrote: I disagree. I think there are specific issues that are of more interest to black voters and other issues that affect Latinos and specific issues that affect the votes of gays and those for women etc.

I think you're reading the condescension into it.Maybe I am. I'd love to be wrong on this.



koan;1338863 wrote: [QUOTE=Ahso!;1338861]For example, there are many health related issues where the incidence is much higher among blacks, so its no wonder health care would be particularly important to the black vote..
I read today that black women were way more susceptible to maternal death than white women in the US, to back up the health issue point.[/QUOTE]Eugene Robinson is a huge blind Obama apologist and a black American. Here is the extent of his comment on healthcare in that article:

"For centrist Democrats who might have wanted him to spend more time on jobs and less on health care, Obama's message is essentially apocalyptic ... "

Robinson clearly believes that jobs and the economy are foremost in black Americans' minds. How is that a Black-specific issue? Though he points out that unemployment has hit them proportionately harder, it is hardly a "black issue."

koan;1338863 wrote: I would guess that any changes to the criminal system would be more relevant to them as well as they tend to receive harsher penalties than whites, statistically.I would guess that, too. I haven't heard one peep on the issue, though, not even from judicial campaigns.

Ahso!;1338861 wrote: The Latino part is an easy call due to immigration.An easy call? So you think voting Americans with Spanish surnames are all on the same side of the immigration issue? The "Latino" label covers the Cuban refugee, Puerto Ricans both in Puerto Rico and New York City, the American-born farm worker, the successful businessman, and the San Antonian who's ancestors have lived in the same city since before America was even a country. How can you presume that it's "an easy call"?
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by Ahso! »

Accountable;1338873 wrote: Maybe I am. I'd love to be wrong on this.



Eugene Robinson is a huge blind Obama apologist and a black American. Here is the extent of his comment on healthcare in that article:

"For centrist Democrats who might have wanted him to spend more time on jobs and less on health care, Obama's message is essentially apocalyptic ... "

Robinson clearly believes that jobs and the economy are foremost in black Americans' minds. How is that a Black-specific issue? Though he points out that unemployment has hit them proportionately harder, it is hardly a "black issue."Robinson, in spite of your characterization was most likely speaking as a journalist.

Accountable;1338873 wrote: An easy call? So you think voting Americans with Spanish surnames are all on the same side of the immigration issue? The "Latino" label covers the Cuban refugee, Puerto Ricans both in Puerto Rico and New York City, the American-born farm worker, the successful businessman, and the San Antonian who's ancestors have lived in the same city since before America was even a country. How can you presume that it's "an easy call"?For those who who may make a difference if motivated, you bet its an easy call. The stereotyping is yours, not mine.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
yaaarrrgg
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:29 pm

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by yaaarrrgg »

Part of this, IMO, is blowback from the GOP's southern strategy. When bigotry has been their bread and butter for half a century (against blacks, non-religious, gays, latinos, muslims, etc), they can expect to lose a lot these votes. A collection of smaller demographics start to form a majority. It has more to do with insulting a demographic and losing votes than actually doing anything for the groups.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by koan »

So it's not that you have a problem with specific races and genders having voting power? ... because, afaik, "the black vote" actually intends to empower them. It's a large group with a lot of voting power... even when you remove the ones who can't vote due to incarceration.

It's more a question of how those groups are mentioned?

Just asking because I thought we were debating whether or not the groups actually exist, which I feel certain they do.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by Accountable »

Ahso!;1338881 wrote: Robinson, in spite of your characterization was most likely speaking as a journalist. You may be right. I read him every week, and this goes along the same vein of his usual writings. He's a columnist rather than a journalist.

Ahso!;1338881 wrote: For those who who may make a difference if motivated, you bet its an easy call.My apologizies. I don't understand how you see it as an easy call. Can you explain it to me?
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by Ahso! »

There are groups within groups. You're correct in what you wrote earlier, but there are a large number of Latinos who are a voting block.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by Accountable »

yaaarrrgg;1338885 wrote: Part of this, IMO, is blowback from the GOP's southern strategy. When bigotry has been their bread and butter for half a century (against blacks, non-religious, gays, latinos, muslims, etc), they can expect to lose a lot these votes. A collection of smaller demographics start to form a majority. It has more to do with insulting a demographic and losing votes than actually doing anything for the groups.Part of what? Part of politicians' propensity to lump people into color-codes? I don't see the connection.



koan;1338889 wrote: So it's not that you have a problem with specific races and genders having voting power? ... because, afaik, "the black vote" actually intends to empower them. It's a large group with a lot of voting power... even when you remove the ones who can't vote due to incarceration.

It's more a question of how those groups are mentioned?

Just asking because I thought we were debating whether or not the groups actually exist, which I feel certain they do.:wah: No, I don't have a problem with any citizen having voting power. My problem is with dividing people whose only difference is arbitrary and superficial, and lumping people whose only commonality might be that arbitrary and superficial feature. I also have a major problem with anyone, especially my federal government, persisting and promoting racial stereotypes that would eventually fade, if only we would let them. Unfortunately, such divisions serve lucrative political purposes.



Ahso!;1338910 wrote: There are groups within groups. You're correct in what you wrote earlier, but there are a large number of Latinos who are a voting block.But are they a voting bloc (I checked the definition :)) because they are Latino, or because they are a subset of an even larger voting bloc with far more important concerns other than a Spanish surname and ancestry?
yaaarrrgg
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:29 pm

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by yaaarrrgg »

Accountable;1338947 wrote: Part of what? Part of politicians' propensity to lump people into color-codes? I don't see the connection.


It's more than just lumping. If a political group alienates enough people, they effectively create a voting bloc. The "black vote" became relevant because the GOP has virtually purified itself into an all-white party. Had they not played the race card so divisively and underhandedly, the "black vote" would probably be spread about 50/50 across both parties.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by Accountable »

So all the responsibility lies on one side? I grant I didn't follow politics much until this century, but it seems most of the "race-carding" comes from the dems.

But isn't it deplorable no matter which side is doing the color-coding?
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by koan »

Have you ever noticed how popular quizzes are that categorize people? What sign are you, what enneagram type, personality type... and on and on, every Womens' magazine has more quizzes. People like to be categorized. They like to be part of a group. In politics it's as much for the benefit of the voters as for the politicians. They want to get people out to vote and voters want to make their vote count. If they feel part of a group with political power because of the numbers they represent then I don't see why it should be a problem. It's only negative if you look at it as derogatory. I really don't think it's meant to be. I see it as empowering.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by Accountable »

I see your point. We had a pep rally at school today and cheered as the juniors out-yelled the seniors while the freshmen quietly took notes on how to behave at such an event. The difference is that no politicians are trying to woo the Aries vote, claiming that everyone born under the sign of Aries will vote for price controls of cinema popcorn prices.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by koan »

Accountable;1338956 wrote: ... everyone born under the sign of Aries will vote for price controls of cinema popcorn prices.


I bet they would though... given the chance.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by Accountable »

koan;1338958 wrote: I bet they would though... given the chance.
:wah: Okay, bad example.
yaaarrrgg
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:29 pm

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by yaaarrrgg »

Accountable;1338952 wrote: So all the responsibility lies on one side? I grant I didn't follow politics much until this century, but it seems most of the "race-carding" comes from the dems.

But isn't it deplorable no matter which side is doing the color-coding?


Yes, I think it's deplorable whoever is doing it. IMO when a party loses the vote of an entire demographic, it is almost entirely the fault of the party that lost the vote.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by Accountable »

I don't get why you think that last sentence was necessary. It's twice you've tried to draw a partisan line where none exists in this conversation.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15981
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Accountable;1339055 wrote: I don't get why you think that last sentence was necessary. It's twice you've tried to draw a partisan line where none exists in this conversation.


Valid point of view - if, in a two party state, one party is shunned by a given section of the population then there are only really three posibilities, the parties policies are bias against that demographic, the politicians within that party are personally objectional to that demographic or that demographic has a leadership powerful enough to enforce tactical voting.

The first two imply a party of prejudice. Now I do not know whether Yaaarrrgg is correct in stating that he GOP have lost the black vote but, given that he believes it to be so, he's putting forward a valid argument given the subject of the thread.

(BTW, the alternative argument that the other party have made their policies so favourable to that portion of the electorate does not hold water as, in direct consequence, they would have lost the vote of the remainder of the population).
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by Accountable »

Bryn Mawr;1339065 wrote: Valid point of view - if, in a two party state, one party is shunned by a given section of the population then there are only really three posibilities, the parties policies are bias against that demographic, the politicians within that party are personally objectional to that demographic or that demographic has a leadership powerful enough to enforce tactical voting.

The first two imply a party of prejudice. Now I do not know whether Yaaarrrgg is correct in stating that he GOP have lost the black vote but, given that he believes it to be so, he's putting forward a valid argument given the subject of the thread.

(BTW, the alternative argument that the other party have made their policies so favourable to that portion of the electorate does not hold water as, in direct consequence, they would have lost the vote of the remainder of the population).How valid is the point of view that both dominant parties work in harmony to exploit prejudices and divide a population that has far more in common than in conflict?

If the fog of doublespeak and political spin were lifted for a moment we might just find out that we don't have as many disagreements as our media love to foment.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15981
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Accountable;1339088 wrote: How valid is the point of view that both dominant parties work in harmony to exploit prejudices and divide a population that has far more in common than in conflict?

If the fog of doublespeak and political spin were lifted for a moment we might just find out that we don't have as many disagreements as our media love to foment.


If that is your point of view then it is valid.

Certainly I would agree that you cannot trust the media to report a croquet match and get the score right.

Just sad to see you trying to stop a PoV being introduced into the discussion. If it's true, accept it, if not then show that it's wrong.

Why should the parties work together to split the electorate - unless you are suggesting that they are two halves of a single controlling organization then it is in their interest to compete for the available votes.

Plenty of support for that view BTW - TruthBringer is not the only one to believe so.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by Accountable »

Bryn Mawr;1339099 wrote: If that is your point of view then it is valid.

Certainly I would agree that you cannot trust the media to report a croquet match and get the score right.

Just sad to see you trying to stop a PoV being introduced into the discussion. If it's true, accept it, if not then show that it's wrong.It's not a conversation about who's better at using the stereotypes to get votes, it's a conversation of why we still accept using the stereotypes at all. Trying to turn it into a partisan debate is derailing. (now it'll be derailed into a conversation of whether it's derailed or not.)

Bryn Mawr;1339099 wrote: Why should the parties work together to split the electorate - unless you are suggesting that they are two halves of a single controlling organization then it is in their interest to compete for the available votes.I've suggested that time and again. They work in harmony to keep the competition to only the two parties, which makes them a single defacto unit. We can continue this conversation in a separate threadl if you wish.
yaaarrrgg
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:29 pm

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by yaaarrrgg »

Consider an actual statement like:

“No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God.” -- George Bush Sr, as a candidate

Then he loses "the atheist" vote and the election. But the point is, there really is no group of "atheists" in itself. IMO, really no one really believes in this religious stuff. Nor would atheists form a voting bloc. They'd just be individuals who happened to overtly not be religious, and would be split evenly 50/50 across the two parties.

Grouping is not always done internally or voluntarily for reasons of pride (as koan mentioned). Often cohesion develops as a response to outside hostility that presents a common threat to *different* people. The group is defined externally, by non-friendly people.

To a large extent, you don't hear this type of race dialog within the democratic primaries as this group has to a larger extent moved past and race. For example pundits may have assumed that Hillary would get the "female votes," and Obama would get a lot of "black votes" but of course there's more female voters than black voters. But if we are just playing identity politics, she would have won the primary. He didn't even run as a "black candidate." Hillary on the the other hand put her gender at the center of her platform, and lost. The majority (females) never really cared what her gender was.

You claim that it's not a partisan issue, but the place you hear this is this race dialog is between the two major parties. Thanks to the GOP. What you are complaining about, is for the most part thanks to people like Lee Atwater, not people like Martin Luther King. Atwater worked to keep the hate alive, whereas King worked to move past color.

If you hadn't noticed, the GOP sowed the seeds of anti-muslim hate over the last decade of election cycles. So, they just created a voting bloc of Muslims, and in twenty years Muslim writers will be pondering if the GOP candidate will get the Muslim vote or not.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by Accountable »

yaaarrrgg;1339200 wrote: To a large extent, you don't hear this type of race dialog within the democratic primaries You've got to be fecking kidding me. YOU don't hear it, because you choose not to hear it. It's front and center of most political analyses, dem or repub.
librtyhead
Posts: 199
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:32 pm

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by librtyhead »

Accountable;1339243 wrote: You've got to be fecking kidding me. YOU don't hear it, because you choose not to hear it. It's front and center of most political analyses, dem or repub.


I have to agree, when Obama was elected if any word was mentioned about his ability to lead, it was deemed racist. Today many Democrates are jumping ship and trying to backpedal away from Obama, many have even (gasp!) called his policies a failed contraption. Is that also racist? Political posturing to save their asses because they cannot make it in the real world doing a real job, most are as egotistical and vain as David Lee Roth. But I guess it is better than the alternative, free drugs for everyone.
yaaarrrgg
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:29 pm

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by yaaarrrgg »

Accountable;1339243 wrote: You've got to be fecking kidding me. YOU don't hear it, because you choose not to hear it. It's front and center of most political analyses, dem or repub.


Well, that might be true as far as the pundits go. They do like to create as much drama as possible, since that's how they sell their papers.

I didn't hear much from the other Dems on attacking Obama for his race. Biden made the biggest gaffe. Hilary ran a fairly high-level campaign. On the next election cycle, Hilary might get the so called "black vote" in the primaries because she didn't do much to alienate the entire demographic with racist attacks or policies.

The GOP on the other hand played up the Muslim sounding name and darker skin. And all the talk about "real Americans" and birth certificates sounded a bit like "Obama isn't white enough" to my ear. Maybe that's just me though.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by Accountable »

yaaarrrgg;1339281 wrote: Well, that might be true as far as the pundits go. They do like to create as much drama as possible, since that's how they sell their papers.

I didn't hear much from the other Dems on attacking Obama for his race. Biden made the biggest gaffe. Hilary ran a fairly high-level campaign. On the next election cycle, Hilary might get the so called "black vote" in the primaries because she didn't do much to alienate the entire demographic with racist attacks or policies.

The GOP on the other hand played up the Muslim sounding name and darker skin. And all the talk about "real Americans" and birth certificates sounded a bit like "Obama isn't white enough" to my ear. Maybe that's just me though.This thread, as much as you seem hellbent on derailing it, is about categorizing & stereotyping American voters by skin color rather than by other more valid interests. It is not a partisan attack. It is not about Obama.
yaaarrrgg
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:29 pm

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by yaaarrrgg »

Accountable;1339285 wrote: This thread, as much as you seem hellbent on derailing it, is about categorizing & stereotyping American voters by skin color rather than by other more valid interests. It is not a partisan attack. It is not about Obama.


Sorry, I'm honestly not trying to derail the thread. I just thought in other to move past color, we have to start looking at the cause of how we got to this point of talking about "the black vote."

I would go out on a limb and predict there is no "black vote" discussed in places like France, any more than there is a "black haired vote" :)
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by koan »

Here's a cause: The Black Vote - research - Brief Article - Statistical Data Included | Black Issues in Higher Education | Find Articles at BNET

Statistics.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by Accountable »

koan;1339300 wrote: Here's a cause: The Black Vote - research - Brief Article - Statistical Data Included | Black Issues in Higher Education | Find Articles at BNET

Statistics.That's the cause?? Here's the text in its entirety:

How African Americans vote and, more importantly, in what numbers and where, will be of great interest to both major parties this election season. In national surveys conducted by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, about 80 percent of African Americans identify themselves as Democrats. While Democratic President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore comfortably enjoyed an overwhelming majority of the Black vote in the last two elections, Republican candidate George W. Bush also has been successful in obtaining Black votes as governor of Texas. Even a minimal shift in the allegiances of Black voters could determine the outcome of the presidential vote in several key states.

It says exactly nothing. Are we to assume that because 80 of black people identify themselves as dem that 100% of those people support abortion, for instance? or that they agree with the DNC stance on illegal immigration?

What are "Black issues" and how are they distinct from issues people without as much melanin might be interested in? I googled "black issues" and found an actual magazine "Black Issues in Higher Education," as if there are particular things about education that only pertain to black people.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Will we ever be able to look beyond color??

Post by Accountable »

yaaarrrgg;1339298 wrote: Sorry, I'm honestly not trying to derail the thread. I just thought in other to move past color, we have to start looking at the cause of how we got to this point of talking about "the black vote." Then do that and stop blaming repubs & being a dem apologist. If you want roots you'll have to go way back. Oh, don't go back to the late 1800's because you'll have to give repubs some credit. And gloss over the Wilson regime that segregated the armed forces; only mention that another dem ended it.

Both sides of our controlling political party do the same things, often using the same words.

Return to “Social Human Rights”