Obama Speech on Race

[packrat44]

samclem - good observation. IMO you are right on target.

 

[donheff]

Better be careful for what you wish - as early retirees, many of us on this forum would be considered "rich".

I don't think so. During my working years I never supported the Reagan and later Bush tax cuts which were very good for my pocketbook. By the time the Bush cuts expire (if the dems win and if they do expire) DW will have pulled the plug and we will be well below the income thresholds cited in any proposals I have heard of. I would expect that virtually all of the retired people here would be in the same boat. Now capital gains going back up would be another story -- but I will bet that doesn't happen principally because it does effect a lot of retirees nowadays.

 

[Letj]

In addition to the difference in tolerance between older and younger folks, I think there's also difference according to economic status. Poorer people (black and white) are (again, in my expereince) more likely to hold intolerant views. This is also good news--these people have less ability to have a negative influence on larger events.

Not that all old or poor people are intolerant--far from it. But a disproportionate number are.

Is that why the working class "down scale" whites are not voting for Obama? Can I conclude that they started the issue of race in this campaign long before Rev. Wright's video surfaced? Is it legitimate to say that they were waiting for an incident to remind them that he is black?

 

[clifp]

There are black bigots and white bigots--intolerance and prejudice is not restricted to one side or the other along racial lines. The biggest difference in attitudes is not between blacks and whites, but between older folks and younger ones. In general, race just is not that big of an issue with younger people. When you hear someone speaking in ways that "make you cringe", it is far more likely (in my experience) to be an older person. Because I'm white, most of the people who would say things like this in my presence are also white, and they are almost without exception older than 50. If Obama is right, the situation is much the same in the "black community."

Not that all old or poor people are intolerant--far from it. But a disproportionate number are.

I agree with Sam here and it isn't just white vs black or black vs white prejudice that is a function of age. I remember my Dad who didn't even see combat, in WWII refused to buy Japanese cars for many decades and even was upset with my sister buying one in the 70s. He explained I can't buy a car from Mitsubishi they made Zeros that killed my friends. Among the many Pearl Harbor survivors/WWII combat veteran, that I've met I've heard plenty of anti Japanese slurs. Nam vets often make derogatory comments about Vietnamese. Even Senator McCain, who championed reconciliation with North Vietnam, referred to his captors as Gooks.

Gov. Huckabee raises a good point, a measure of understanding is in order for bigoted older people who've been horribly mistreated by another group. I still cringe when I heard bigoted statements like Reverend Wright makes, but my condemnation isn't nearly as much as if I heard the same garbage from 20 year old white or black kid.

 

[samclem]

Is that why the working class "down scale" whites are not voting for Obama?

I think that might be a reason--that poor people are more likely to hold racial prejudices. But, given that Hillary and Obama are virtually indistinguishable on economic issues, and that the vote among blacks is far more skewed toward Obama than the white vote is skewed toward Clinton, I think it is very interesting that you ask if it is the poor white voters who are intolerant. The effect is clearly stronger among poor black voters, but this seems to escape your notice.

Can I conclude that they started the issue of race in this campaign long before Rev. Wright's video surfaced? Is it legitimate to say that they were waiting for an incident to remind them that he is black?

Who are the "they" and "them" in your statements? I don't think anybody "started" the issue of race in this campaign, there is no master conspiracy. Obama is the first serious black candidate for president, it was inevitable that this subject would come up. I think the debate to this point has been terrifically productive, in large part due to the way Obama has handled it.

I think Obama has tremendous potential to bring the nation together on this issue of race. I also think he's a gifted speaker, and that is not a skill that should be under-rated (the last 8 years should be sufficient illustration, by its absence, of the importance of this in a President). I just disagree with him on nearly every important issue: The war in Iraq, the proper role of government, the roots and means of continuation of American economic prosperity, the role of America in the world. Oh, and the fact that he's just not been alive long enough to have sufficient background for the job. These are very big issues, and too much to overlook in order to get a good speaker who can help us bridge a racial divide that we are bridging anyway (albeit at too slow a rate).

Off topic: "Working class" is a very funny label. The implication being, I guess, that professionals, managers, etc don't work.

 

[laurence]

Once again, Samclem, you've said it better than I could.

I've been a McCain booster since '00, and I'm very excited he's wrapped up the GOP nod. Obama definitely makes me look twice though, I think there is something inherently beneficial having someone other than an old white man run the country. I'm divided on the lack of experience issue, because is more time in Washington a good thing? This is the first time I am old enough to vote where I didn't know who I was going to vote for in November.

 

[Texarkandy]

....... I think Obama has tremendous potential to bring the nation together on this issue of race. ......


...... a good speaker who can help us bridge a racial divide that we are bridging anyway (albeit at too slow a rate).

I still don't understand how it seems to have become a given that Obama can "bring this nation together" or "bridge a racial divide"?

Is it because he's bi-racial & culturally affiliated with the black community? Does that give him some sort of special magic? That's a racist idea in and of itself.

It's nobody's fault but Obama's that race has suddenly become an issue in this campaign due to his 20 year close association with a racist preacher. Are we supposed to give him a "pass" on that because he's black (bi-racial)?

 

[Texarkandy]

.............
Gov. Huckabee raises a good point, a measure of understanding is in order for bigoted older people who've been horribly mistreated by another group.
......

How has Rev Jeremiah Wright been "horribly" mistreated?

 

[chinaco]

I noticed that Obama is making himself available to interviews to try to address the situation. Network commentators and far right radio and cable TV commentators (mainly) have been parsing his words looking for any hint of inconsistency and doing micro-analysis looking for any small thing that is controversial.

They are beginning to take it to a level that is darn near a witch hunt.

Enough already... he has explained it the best he can.

Some people in the black community feel that they were treated unfairly and sometimes the resentment is expressed. In this case a preacher expressed it. And as far as I can tell, it was more of an isolate incident for the preacher... he is not an Al Sharpton clone.

The event took a little of the glow off of Obama's image. It is probably time for the media to move on.

Put it like this... if that is all that they have, it isn't much.

I may not support the man or vote for him... but I have not interest in seeing him destroyed for someone else's comments.

 

[clifp]

How has Rev Jeremiah Wright been "horribly" mistreated?

Do you really think that 20 year old black men were treated well in Virginia and Washington DC in the early 60s, where Rev Wright went to a segregated college> I don't know the specifics with Rev. Wright, but I would hazard a guess he was called boy, N*, had to use a seperate bathrooms, drinking fountains, entrances, and eating facilities.

Not sure if he was ever beaten up, spat upon, or threaten with hanging for being an uppity N*, but it certainly was common treatment for blacks in the South in the 60s.

How much money would have to pay you to spend 1 year as young black man in Virginia in the early 60s?

 

[ChrisC]

I still don't understand how it seems to have become a given that Obama can "bring this nation together" or "bridge a racial divide"?

Is it because he's bi-racial & culturally affiliated with the black community? Does that give him some sort of special magic? That's a racist idea in and of itself.

It's nobody's fault but Obama's that race has suddenly become an issue in this campaign due to his 20 year close association with a racist preacher. Are we supposed to give him a "pass" on that because he's black (bi-racial)?

Ah Tex, it doesn't help the discussion to continue to detonate the race card by labeling ideas "racist" or somehow throwing around the charge that Obama gets a pass on linkeage issues because he's black.

Isn't it rather plainly obvious to our generation, assuming you had some personal experiences and observations over our segregated past and unfair treatment of minorities in this country, that Obama represents a stunning achievement for our nation, much like other trailblazers before him, that symbolizes that we are really moving towards a more inclusive society? It is a given that Obama is bridging the racial divide and bringing generations together simply because he represents a more "inclusive" candidate by virtue of his ethnicity and background. What is racist about that notion? It's not anymore racist in saying that Jackie Robinson or Tiger Woods were good for baseball or golf and our society in general because they advance us towards a more integrated or culturally diverse society by virtue of their inclusion in a club that formerly was "for whites only."

Race and ethnicity have generally been factors in many of our political discussions about candidates for national office, so these factors are not unique simply because Obama is in the race. They would have still be drawn out if Obama wasn't in the race. (For example, I bet many black folks view McCain more favorable than other Republican candidates simply because McCain had a very forthright change of mind and heart over the Confederate Flag issue in 2000. And if Clinton is the democratic candidate we can expect McCain to make some inroads into the black base of democratic support.)

We have made amazing progress in this nation, especially as we have generally integrated most ethnic groups into mainstream society. We don't even blink an eye when candidates with names like Ferrarro, Dukakis, Liebermann, Sununu, Cisneros or Jindal run for office. And now we have a legitmate candidate with a name that appears to be African-derived running for office; that alone is a milestone of sorts -- people in general have gotten past the name!

There's still much work to be done along the racial divide, but Obama, whether he wins or loses the nomination or election, represents a major advancement in our society. Frankly, I thought I'd never live to see this day.

 

[Texarkandy]

ClifP - So you are assuming these "horrible" things happened to Rev Wright -

While I would agree some of the things you mentioned were "wrong" I would have to say the use of the word "horrible" is a bit of an exageration.

Even growing up during those time, isn't it funny how Rev Wright did manage to go to college, voluntarily join the military, raise a family, start a big church, travel freely, buy a home, speak freely, etc etc etc in his life - all in this "horrible" country, no?

Now things have happened (& still do happen) in some other countries to different ethnic groups that I can say you could fairly characterize as "horrible" - i.e. widespread murders, rapes, and genocide - as well as numerous lesser "horrors".

To my mind Jeremiah Wright is just another one of those racial opportunists common to the black, white, & latino ethnic groups in the US, building an organization and career for himself by pitting one race against the other by spewing hatred - no better than the KKK, Reverend Phelps, and very akin to the Christian Identity theology.

Obama is a sitting US Senator & his presence in that church sets an example for many young (& old) people in the black community & lends credence to the Pastors message.

Times have changed - perhaps sometime in the past 20 years Mr. Obama should have used some of his considerable speaking skills to bring Mr. Wright up to date in their apparently many heart-to-heart conversations together - instead of making excuses for him.

Frankly, I suspect Obama (& Oprah) are sympathetic to a lot of this stuff put forth by Rev Wright - & I think a lot of other white voters are going to think the same.

 

[donheff]

ClifP - So you are assuming these "horrible" things happened to Rev Wright -

While I would agree some of the things you mentioned were "wrong" I would have to say the use of the word "horrible" is a bit of an exaggeration.

Wright may or may not have been personally subjected to the worst features of segregation but he certainly lived surrounded by their effects and the whole violent reaction to the civil rights movement. I don't believe that warrants screaming "G** D*** the US" today, but there were no privileged by-standers back then - the situation was too global for that.

As to whether the treatment of blacks was "horrible" or not, I think you are way off base. Being officially treated as half a man, unqualified to take a s*** in the same dumper as your white peers, drafted to fight then sent to the back of the bus are more grievous insults than those that led the founders to revolution.

 

[dex]

I noticed that Obama is making himself available to interviews to try to address the situation. Network commentators and far right radio and cable TV commentators (mainly) have been parsing his words looking for any hint of inconsistency and doing micro-analysis looking for any small thing that is controversial.

They are beginning to take it to a level that is darn near a witch hunt.

Enough already... he has explained it the best he can.

Some people in the black community feel that they were treated unfairly and sometimes the resentment is expressed. In this case a preacher expressed it. And as far as I can tell, it was more of an isolate incident for the preacher... he is not an Al Sharpton clone.

The event took a little of the glow off of Obama's image. It is probably time for the media to move on.

Put it like this... if that is all that they have, it isn't much.

I may not support the man or vote for him... but I have not interest in seeing him destroyed for someone else's comments.

Is this parsing? These are his comments.

http://www.early-retirement.org/for...he-typical-white-person-34206.html#post631710

 

[chinaco]

Is this parsing? These are his comments.

http://www.early-retirement.org/for...he-typical-white-person-34206.html#post631710

Yes. How many people do you know that can make a politically correct defense when trying to respond to people that are on the attack. Almost any set of words can be construed in a negative way.

The man was merely trying to describe his life experience. the word "typical" in this case is synonymous with "average" or "common". His generalization should not be construed as a racist remark, he was trying to describe a very complicated set of feelings in the black community.

The RNC and their mouth pieces need to understand that their hyperbole will whip up the ultra-right... by turn off the middle ground voters (swing vote). The negative sentiment Obama is experiencing will swing the other direction to sympathy.

 

[EarlyRetiree1978]

Yes. How many people do you know that can make a politically correct defense when trying to respond to people that are on the attack. Almost any set of words can be construed in a negative way.

The man was merely trying to describe his life experience. the word "typical" in this case is synonymous with "average" or "common". His generalization should not be construed as a racist remark, he was trying to describe a very complicated set of feelings in the black community.

The RNC and their mouth pieces need to understand that their hyperbole will whip up the ultra-right... by turn off the middle ground voters (swing vote). The negative sentiment Obama is experiencing will swing the other direction to sympathy.

I dont think many people will buy into the sympathy bandwagon. I have friends that contributed financially to the Obama campaign who are now either not voting for him or are second guessing his REAL ideas and intentions.

 

[chinaco]

I dont think many people will buy into the sympathy bandwagon. I have friends that contributed financially to the Obama campaign who are now either not voting for him or are second guessing his REAL ideas and intentions.

Sympathy and support swing back and forth.

Obama is a little tarnished... but not out of it.

He must be a real threat to the RNC.

When it comes down to Republican vs Democrat. The Republican candidate has an uphill battle.

 

[dex]

Yes. How many people do you know that can make a politically correct defense when trying to respond to people that are on the attack. Almost any set of words can be construed in a negative way.

The man was merely trying to describe his life experience. the word "typical" in this case is synonymous with "average" or "common". His generalization should not be construed as a racist remark, he was trying to describe a very complicated set of feelings in the black community.

The RNC and their mouth pieces need to understand that their hyperbole will whip up the ultra-right... by turn off the middle ground voters (swing vote). The negative sentiment Obama is experiencing will swing the other direction to sympathy.

The senator was an editor of the Havard Law Review; a lawyer and running for president of the USA.
He knows words; how to use them and how to speak clearly - that is one of his acknowledged strenghts. As such he does not require after the fact explanations.
His "typical white" comments are a result of his decision to follow; associate with and hire for his campaign the Pastor Wright. They are indictative of his beliefs and thought process.

 

[Arc]

Sympathy and support swing back and forth.

Obama is a little tarnished... but not out of it.

He must be a real threat to the RNC.

When it comes down to Republican vs Democrat. The Republican candidate has an uphill battle.

Not only is he not out of it - he still leads Hilliam in delegates and popular vote - it's his to lose.

Right now he is only a real threat to Hilliam - if the race remains close or gets tighter - we will see the Clinton machine in all its glory. Even though they are somewhat quiet at the moment - this may just be the one issue that can convince the Dems that Obama cannot win in Nov - there is no way the Clintons don't exploit it to the max. Also, it is very possible that the Wright stuff is just the tip of the iceberg - as we know, Obama is still somewhat of an unknown.

It may be just a little early to determine who has the uphill battle. I think there is a real possibility that a very weak, bloody and bruised Obama emerges as the Dem candidate. If so - it will be good for McCain.

I continue to be absolutely fascinated with this race - talk about history in the making - I'm just soaking it all in.

 

[chinaco]

The senator was an editor of the Havard Law Review; a lawyer and running for president of the USA.
He knows words; how to use them and how to speak clearly - that is one of his acknowledged strenghts. As such he does not require after the fact explanations.
His "typical white" comments are a result of his decision to follow; associate with and hire for his campaign the Pastor Wright. They are indictative of his beliefs and thought process.

I follow the logic.

I have considered his comment. But boiling the man down to two words in the middle of a statement is a little overboard.

I would not give him a pass on the overall event. But it is a stretch to chalk him up as not being able to be trusted.

I am not worried about his feelings towards whites. I am a little concerned about social engineering and more taxes to support the new programs.

But. I am less worried about those programs than maintaining the political status quo.

The question is: which president do you want Hillary or Obama?

 

[dex]

I follow the logic.

I have considered his comment. But boiling the man down to two words in the middle of a statement is a little overboard.

I would not give him a pass on the overall event. But it is a stretch to chalk him up as not being able to be trusted.

I am not worried about his feelings towards whites. I am a little concerned about social engineering and more taxes to support the new programs.

But. I am less worried about those programs than maintaining the political status quo.

The question is: which president do you want Hillary or Obama?

It isn't about two words; nor is it about race; nor is it about religion; nor is it about outside supports; it is about decisions; a 20 year association and a guiding philosophy. The two words are just indicative of it.
+++++++++++++++++
You might want to follow these links
Trinity United Church of Christ

The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone’s book, Black Power and Black Theology.

James Hal Cone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
read the whole entry but here is some of it

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love

 

[chinaco]

It isn't about two words; ...

I appreciate your point of view.

Let's agree to disagree.

 

[ChrisC]

The senator was an editor of the Havard Law Review; a lawyer and running for president of the USA.
He knows words; how to use them and how to speak clearly - that is one of his acknowledged strenghts. As such he does not require after the fact explanations.
His "typical white" comments are a result of his decision to follow; associate with and hire for his campaign the Pastor Wright. They are indictative of his beliefs and thought process.

The Senator is also trying to add realism and empathy to a common experience: how to deal with a family member, friend or mentor who harbors views that are decidely different from, and in some cases quite offensive to, your own personal views. While some read the Senator's statement as throwing his grandmother under the bus, I actually thought he was trying to deflate the negativity surrounded by people who might harbor racist views by indicating that you take the whole person's worth, not just how one measures up on the racial divide. It's been my experience that when it comes to family, friends or mentors, we don't take a one-track view of their worth based on some racial sensitivity litmus test. How many of us cut-off our ties to our family or friends based on intolerant racist, sexist or homophobic views that they might share?

So, I think you are parsing one sliver of the experience and blowing it way out of proportion based on the "typical" comment. Typically, I do notice when I get in the elevator some people do clutch their purses -- does that make my observation that typically it happens with older white women, racist? Maybe my observation is obscured by my own race -- and I'm just selectively looking at older white women, though I've done this experiment with others and they've seen the same thing!

If you want to argue Obama is racist because of his association with his Church, which is associated with the parsed-out version of Black Liberation Theology you quote from Wiki, you're on better footing than arguing that his "typical" comment suggests Obama's racially tone deaf or biased! But on balance, there is a lot of information out there that suggests his Church is more nuanced in its dealings on racial issues and that the entire body of worshippers includes a segment of white congregants -- this is hardly suggestive of a racist theology.

 

[dex]

The Senator is also trying to add realism and empathy to a common experience: how to deal with a family member, friend or mentor who harbors views that are decidely different from, and in some cases quite offensive to, your own personal views. While some read the Senator's statement as throwing his grandmother under the bus, I actually thought he was trying to deflate the negativity surrounded by people who might harbor racist views by indicating that you take the whole person's worth, not just how one measures up on the racial divide. It's been my experience that when it comes to family, friends or mentors, we don't take a one-track view of their worth based on some racial sensitivity litmus test. How many of us cut-off our ties to our family or friends based on intolerant racist, sexist or homophobic views that they might share?

So, I think you are parsing one sliver of the experience and blowing it way out of proportion based on the "typical" comment. Typically, I do notice when I get in the elevator some people do clutch their purses -- does that make my observation that typically it happens with older white women, racist? Maybe my observation is obscured by my own race -- and I'm just selectively looking at older white women, though I've done this experiment with others and they've seen the same thing!

If you want to argue Obama is racist because of his association with his Church, which is associated with the parsed-out version of Black Liberation Theology you quote from Wiki, you're on better footing than arguing that his "typical" comment suggests Obama's racially tone deaf or biased! But on balance, there is a lot of information out there that suggests his Church is more nuanced in its dealings on racial issues and that the entire body of worshippers includes a segment of white congregants -- this is hardly suggestive of a racist theology.

"It isn't about two words; nor is it about race; nor is it about religion; nor is it about outside supports; it is about decisions; a 20 year association and a guiding philosophy. The two words are just indicative of it."

You might have missed my words above. It specifically addresses the points you raise about my comments.

 

[ChrisC]

"It isn't about two words; nor is it about race; nor is it about religion; nor is it about outside supports; it is about decisions; a 20 year association and a guiding philosophy. The two words are just indicative of it."

You might have missed my words above. It specifically addresses the points you raise about my comments.

You say that but I'm inclined to think that it's about guilt of racial intolerance by association. Yes, twenty years of association with a minister who has given countless sermons -- and I'm not excusing any of vitriol he's said. I myself have literally puked in my church pew when my own pastor goes off on a homophobic or anti-abortion rant. And I could always join another church but it's not that simple and on balance I stay in my church for a number of other spiritual and familial reasons. I suppose this happens to a lot of us.

You're judging on the basis of what I consider a little sliver of the whole association. And I haven't missed your words.