When 90 + percent of blacks voted for Pres. Obama in the last election , That tells me something important in the whole "racism " accusation-al debate ! Just who is the REAL RACIST ? Answer the question first before offering general rhetoric . OR DON"T ANSWER AT ALL .
What is racist about supporting people in elections that support your interests? You conservatives do it all of the time....
Can you simply answer the question Credence ?
Are you trying to get me banned because you cannot defeat my reasoning on a fair and square basis?
I just will say to answer you, just go clean your looking glass and you will be presented with your answer. Or am I missing something?
Like who IS the real racist ?
You don't have to answer this I understand the pressure , its a simply question that deserves much insight . You see , Most of "white " America have been doing just that for a few hundred years and so what happens ; we all become introspective enough to actually evolve , Hence the civil war -[ of all the possible descriptive words ] the civil rights movement , affirmative action , and finally............... a day that we all wished for -equality . And no , I will never try to get anyone banned .
And yet , apparently , who hasn't kept up with all of this , progress ?
You are once again communicating in riddles...
I told you who the REAL racist is for just having the temerity to ask such a question
Are you saying that white america has taken action to provide evidence of non-racism? Yes, things have improved considerably from the 19th century but not without blood and struggle. That struggle while taking a different form today is still ongoing. There are many of you that have not kept up and still do not 'get it'.
I would consider it racist to vote for or against someone on the basis of their skin colour.
It should be noted the black vote has been historically democratic - a quick Google search shows Al Gore winning 90% of the vote in 2000, and John Kerry winning 88% in 2004. Obama's numbers are 5-7% higher in his two elections and he managed an 8% higher black vote turnout, so it's quite possible that a subset of these votes were primarily or at least in part because of his skin colour. At a glance it seems he also did better with whites than, for instance, John Kerry.
In general people don't bother to know all or even any of a candidate's policies or positions. Voting on something historical like the first black president is perhaps a better motive than any - or even the only motive - for a significant subset of voters, including non-black voters. When I was younger I had this mindset, and if I were an American I might have voted for Obama for this reason (though to be fair, I would have likely voted Democrat anyway). I speculate there were likely another significant % of non-white voters that voted for him because he is black, on top of the black voters that did.
On the other hand, there were probably non-black voters who voted against Obama simply because he was black (although I can't imagine many black voters voting against him simply because he was black).
To me, both scenarios would be racist. One is perniciously subtle* and the other bluntly overt, but they both manage to do the same thing: ignore merits on the basis of skin colour.
Unfortunately there's not much way around this, as any candidate can and will have a subset of voters voting for them simply because they identify with him or her in some way, even with something superficial as appearance. This effect might have been especially pronounced with Obama because of the historical significance. Currently this effect is being mostly exploited by Hillary Clinton, as she is the potential first female president.
In light of Credence's accusation, I don't see how it's racist of you to ask this question or to point this out. Many people have flat out admitted to voting for Obama simply because he was black. I don't see how voting on the basis of colour can be considered not racist.*
*You can speculate that instead of a subtle form of racism, it'd be "historism" or "firstism"; biases for being the first of something in history. But I think it needs an element of discrimination (perceived or otherwise) to work. For instance, people would not vote for the first 20 or 30 year old president simply because he'd be the first "young" president.
I appreciate your imput here, stepping into the lion's den.
On another thread, I mentioned that John Kennedy won in 1960 with a larger percentage of Catholics votes than that given Adlai Stevenson in 1956. Did these extra votes go to Kennedy because he was Catholic? Was there not a sense of pride that went with seeing one of your own attain so lofty an office?
It just seems to me that this sort of attachment does not come with the same sort of negative connotation that is found when race and ethnicity is involved.
Folks that would normally have fallen in the Democratic column did not because Hillary Clinton was not the nominee in 2008. Pennsylvania, West Virginia, for example. Racism kept much of those votes away from Obama. But, I have to admit that the novelty of a Black president is going to stir the imagination of those that have normally been apathetic as to the casting of a ballot.
Is that all chalked up to racism?
"On another thread, I mentioned that John Kennedy won in 1960 with a larger percentage of Catholics votes than that given Adlai Stevenson in 1956. Did these extra votes go to Kennedy because he was Catholic? Was there not a sense of pride that went with seeing one of your own attain so lofty an office?"
Yes to both. I alluded to this in-group bias that most of us act on. A word for this particular one could be Catholicophilia - a preference towards Catholics. It still largely ignores the merits of the candidate on the basis of their religion.
"It just seems to me that this sort of attachment does not come with the same sort of negative connotation that is found when race and ethnicity is involved."
In the context of Kennedy's votes, it would fall under the category of perniciously subtle, especially in that given time period. But imagine it in the context of Catholicophobia: "I would not vote for a candidate that is Catholic."
If this doesn't work, replace Catholic with a religious group that is perceived as a minority or discriminated against, for instance, Muslims. "I would not vote for a candidate that is Muslim" would certainly be perceived as bigoted (or even somehow racist by those that share Ben Affleck's line of thought.)
I would add that there are religious views that end up being more or less moral than other religious views, thus a judgement against a candidate that is of x religion isn't as superficial as judgement based on the colour of the candidate's skin.
"Folks that would normally have fallen in the Democratic column did not because Hillary Clinton was not the nominee in 2008. Pennsylvania, West Virginia, for example. Racism kept much of those votes away from Obama."
Perhaps sexism also kept the votes away from Obama i.e. some of those voters would only vote for Democratic Hillary because she's a woman.
"But, I have to admit that the novelty of a Black president is going to stir the imagination of those that have normally been apathetic as to the casting of a ballot.
Is that all chalked up to racism?"
I speculated that a novelty bias (I called it "firstism") could be the primary motive for some of these voters, but I realized that a novel candidate wouldn't yield a significant number of votes unless that candidate was perceived as discriminated against - thus there's an element of subtle racism.
I don't think all of it is chalked up to racism (including cases where votes were taken away from Obama), but it's certainly there. We'd probably need to define and obtain a consensus on what is and isn't racism to get a better picture. For instance, if in-group bias to voting candidates of your own skin colour is not racist, is it racist to have an in-group bias to hiring employees of your own skin colour?
It is just another symptom of the inability of our broken system to find a compromise. Polar opposite viewpoints keep us at each others throats while the politicians steal the house from under us. This is also our fault.
I wish more could see the lunacy of the arguments we waste our time with and try harder to bridge the gap of derision that pervades our political landscape.
The argument breaks down to the difference between a Bernie Sanders and a Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. This also touches upon why Hillary Clinton falls short for so many of us on the populist left.
That, in a nutshell, is the gap of derision that pervades our political landscape. One set of candidates opens the gap larger, while the other attempts to deal with the causes of that gap and apply proper policy to close it.
All you have to do is read the papers to see that it correlates very highly with ideology. It is simply not something you can ignore. There is more to this than just 'six of one and half dozen of the other'.
The real argument is whether the American people are able to deal with the real problems themselves. The looking towards a leader who will inspire us to change the system is only being voiced by one candidate yet he is much maligned by the media and the opposite side. Why is this you suppose? Is it that we are too involved in our own pettiness to agree to the compromises necessary to engage the problems? Bernie himself says he cannot change it himself but needs a revolutionary change in the participation of the electorate to help him transform the decaying system of greed that runs our country and our lives. We are looking to a Christ like change for the candidate of our choice to change everything for us. But just as the left enjoins Hillary with such poll numbers it fulfills a proverb that speaks in the same light. ...As a dog returns to its vomit, so fools repeat their folly. Proverbs 26:11
As long as we argue in a negative demeanor we will accomplish nothing.
Rh, you and I are ready to deal with 'the problem'. Bernie Sanders is going to assualt the the problem, taking his chisel to the monolith. That monolith being the pervasive nature of influence peddling, the corruption of money to the detriment of the will of the people in our political system. Sanders is in a position to use a big chisel, but he is going to need a lot of small ones working along with him.
It going to be hard to get term limits or anything else while the moneychangers rule. They have to be vanquished not coddled. While I have heard the desire for 'term limits' across the ideological spectrum, there is a difference between just 'talk' and doing, putting people in power that will actually walk the talk. That is how you separate the wheat from the chaff.
We have to identify and focus on our adversary, because our adversaries know who we are and are determined to not accomodate the needed changes we seek without a fight to the death. The enemy is in camouflage, knowing that it can diffuse the attention of the people away from itself.
Reminds me of the film sci-fi horror film "The Thing" released in the 1980's.
Sanders is not going to be the answer to all of our problems, but he is a good start and he cannot do it alone.
I agree with everything you say but as Bernie puts it change comes from the bottom up and not the other way around. Arguing with the right just promotes the "fear and hope" dichotomy that they wish to construct and maintain. Arguing with the left with "pie in the sky dreams" just makes it worse. We have to accept who we are and talk in a civil argument rather than pointing at each other and identifying the other as an ideology and not a person who does have fear and hope and pie in the sky dreams. I refuse to talk at people in this divisive way as it accomplishes nothing. Candidates like Trump and Cruz expand on this tactic of divisiveness while Hillary and O'Malley talk in circles to entrench themselves farther with their big money sponsors. Agreed that O'Malley is having a harder time with it but Hillary is a slick package who "has a plan" and never answers the question.
We are the problem and we want to ignore it.
There is a fight with the 'right' because they are not interested in the 'bottom'.
We know who we are but we also need to know who and what are the impediments to instituting the needed changes, before corrections can be made.
Trump brags about his gladhanding and influence peddling in regards to politicians. Cruz hates the middle class and is a tool of the most affluent, who wants to maintain their advantages at all costs.
Sanders inspires people with the possibility that some changes can be wrought, and it is not 'hopeless'. The young and progressive have already got on board.
Are the adversaries really willing to engage in civil dialouge?
So your argument ends with a who is right and who is wrong conclusion. Where are we now? Asking questions in an discussion and relying on factual data to clear any misconceptions seems a reasonable and logical way to make a point. Pointing a finger at someone and saying they are this or they are that does what? Create a animosity which is conducive to what?
All I am saying is when someone says trickle down economics is the solution to our sparking the economy I always ask them how? Or when someone tells me it is okay to allow some one to take my right away to have a gun I ask why? Let the other state their case and ask them to explain it. If they wish to come back with a liberal or conservative diatribe then ask how it applies.
We are the beginning of the change and not the politicians. Not only are they bought by people way above our pay grade to ignore us, they also work against each other to protect the rights of their employers. We are the problem yet we squabble among ourselves.
No, my argument begins with identifying who is wrong and who is right, the next stage is to wage the assault against those that are identified as wrong. Is that not appropriate? The animosity is already here, the bad guys have to be defeated, period.
As to your question regarding trickle-down economics. Have the proponents ever provided satifactory answers? Who lines up behind trickle-down? These people self-identify as conservatives, letting capitalism run amuck without any restraints
There is one side that opposes the idea of trickle down and the other that promotes the idea. Its is not an amorphous mass on either side, how do they self identify?
There are liberal principles and tendencies and conservative ones: Which one does trickle-down belong to? So, I have to battle against the idea of trickle down AND the self-identified people who promote it.
Change starts with the people, but it has not been enough to dislodge entrenched power. People can get behind Bernie not as pie in the sky, but as the only candidate that is committed to at least trying to dislodge the status quo, in a POSITIVE direction.
So, just shaking up the system for its own sake is not good enough. That is why I could never consider a Donald Trump as president. Because when the spinning of the dice stops, when could end up with an autocrat that could well take us backward.
"Are the adversaries really willing to engage in civil dialouge?"
My point exactly. How can you win over a person with a belligerent attitude who is only looking to hear their own words? Move on to someone else as the only thing arguing with them does is encourage them to become more belligerent. Make your points and remain steadfast in your willingness to make discussion. Try to win allies and not invoke an enemy.
There's no doubt in my mind that race played a huge part in the percentage of black Americans live voted for President Obama. In the same respect they were whites that did not vote for him simply because he was black. The blame for racism lays on both sides. I personally feel that his presidency has not yielded any significant good however I don't think that it's because he's black that no good came of his presidency
I am so tired of all the implications that if one is pointing out the ineffective "leadership " of this president and his administration , that they are biased , prejudiced and prejudiced haters . THAT ALONE IS THE ALL EASY PUSH BUTTON ANSWER TO CRITICS , of this administration .
While on this side , its "You white people , slave holders , racist bigots , on an on , Let me make this point ; I have heard people use the N***** word describing their feelings about Obama , and like almost all decently raised northerners I am sickened by that word spoken out loud by anyone . When its a business person , I don't honor that business anymore , when it's a private person , I realize that that person is below my friendship .
But I am sickened MORE by a MEDIA that had played this concert out perfectly , " Racism " is the new way of describing anyone who's against your lines of ideology . I can only say this , While most ALL racism and race related delineations in public places was eliminated decades ago , there is still a wide variation of users of rhetorical racism ! In the media , political forums , education systems , government jobs , unions , anywhere that supposedly educated "Affirmative Action " rests its ugly two faced head , there is racism .
But , that racism is now in full reverse ! But not the reverse that it had been in for decades , This President stated himself , that If the voice of racial matters must raise its voice then ," Bring It On "........Blah blah blah .........."
The One thing that I will always remember MOST about President Obama's administration , It is that he re-instituted "Racism " into the public forums everywhere , From the media , to the streets , from the talk in the newspapers, to the 24 hour news programs , from elementary schools to college's everywhere , to organized labor -THUS Re-stoking what was once the dying embers of a centuries old world disorder .....Racism .
Congratulations President Obama ! The one major accomplishment of all the endless possibilities of any renown world leader ! You and your people alone set back social , educational , media and personal race evolutionary accomplishment --BACK fifty years in America !
Nobody says that Obama is not subject to criticism because of his policies. My way of seeing things and your way is different. Conservatives and Progressives are different.
Your argument about the 90% black voting democrat has nothing to do with reasonable people in disagreement about policy and leaders.
"Nobody says that Obama is not subject to criticism because of his policies"
I personally have not seen it in regards to Obama and his policies, but I wouldn't consider it a farfetched notion. I've seen plenty of instances of people being accused of x-ism because they disagree with x. People have been accused of being Islamophobes for disagreeing with Islam, sexists for disagreeing with feminism and racists for disagreeing with minorities.
In fact, you yourself accuse ahorseback of racism just for asking a question in this very thread. (I don't blame you as his style is blunt and inflammatory, but you can see how easy it is to push that button.)
Those on the GOP/conservative side would have natural animosity toward Obama, like they had with Clinton, before him. That is not unexpected.
So, it is not appropriate to say that if you disagree with Obama you are racist, necessarily.
There are a lot of things of which I disapprove that does not allow me to paint such people as villians in all aspect of life. I never indicated otherwise.
A racist undermines every aspect of the target race and ethnicity. Even things that they really have no knowledge of nor can support beyond their statements of such 'things' being the case.
You are new here, Ahorseback has a great deal of material in this forum which would give me a background on his position from positions he stood on before.
Racists make general statements that Black, (most or all) vote for a candidate because he is black. That flies in the face of voting patterns shown over more than half a century.
There is a presumption from the Rush Limbaughs, Bill O'Reilly, and Ahorsebacks, that we as a people are being controlled and are not capable of making decisions based on factors other than the color of a persons skin. It goes on to people who continue to stick in the barbs, Jeb Bush's comment implying that Blacks thrive on 'free stuff' and are not willing to work for the things others have.
And yet, Ahorseback wants to know why 90% of the Black electorate vote Democratic?
First , Your wrong including me with the ....." Orielly , Rush Limbaugh and ahorseback , " .....I actually can't stand Oreilly or Limbaugh , or half the other right wing open mouths . Yet , you so quickly include me in that group ......... See what I mean about grouping so naturally ,for some ? I am a true Regan lover , since then though the presidential "leaders" have gone down hill fast and furious .beginning with Clinton .
I still stand by my opinion that Obama is the most socialist president ever ! He's a liberal bully and uses executive action because of the rightfully intended executive inclusion in the balance of powers of all three branches of government . He 's a European- socialism fan and has done nothing but sell out the uniqueness of our American independence .
That however , doesn't make me a racist . Yet it's a very common trait of the new liberal to throw that into the mix up of all debate for offensive purposes , congratulations Credence . you get a star on your forehead for that one .
I guess to each, his or her own. I thought Reagan was basically a fraud.
I question your view about Obama's abuse of the President's use of Executive Orders. I regard his performance as mostly positive, while you say otherwise. We will not likely find common ground on that point. So, we will leave it with the voters to determine whether we remain on this path, is that fair enough for you?
Yes, if your dispute with Obama is not personal but based on ideological and political differences, ok. I don't expect any conservatives to be happy and I want them to be even more unhappy with the election of another Democrat as President.
"So, it is not appropriate to say that if you disagree with Obama you are racist, necessarily."
Agreed, but people still make that accusation.
"There are a lot of things of which I disapprove that does not allow me to paint such people as villians in all aspect of life. I never indicated otherwise."
I didn't mean to say you did. I meant to say that there exists a dangerous meme of people shutting down discussion by accusing the other of being an -ist. I think that is the easy button ahorseback is referring to.
"You are new here, Ahorseback has a great deal of material in this forum which would give me a background on his position from positions he stood on before."
I imagined so, but the point I was making is that it's become far too easy to levy such severe accusations of racism, sexism, hatred etc. in an attempt at shutting down the discussion in general.
I'm not saying you did that to shut down discussion, by the way. I'm just saying it's an easy thing to do.
"Racists make general statements that Black, (most or all) vote for a candidate because he is black. That flies in the face of voting patterns shown over more than half a century. "
Some of those could be racist, but some could simply be uninformed.
"are not capable of making decisions based on factors other than the color of a persons skin"
I don't know about the controlled bit, but I do think most people don't know the details of a candidate and his policies. I'm just speculating, though.
"And yet, Ahorseback wants to know why 90% of the Black electorate vote Democratic?"
I still think that's a valid question to ask, considering that left-leaning parties in Western democracies generally win the minority vote if I'm not mistaken. Even more generally, why do people vote for who they vote? How many people are making informed voting decisions?
(I understand why it gives you pause when it comes from ahorseback though.)
"Some could be racist and some could be uninformed"
This could always be true. But, we just keep hearing at lot of this from the folks on the right (movers and shakers), that clearly should know better
MOst people do not know the details of a candidate and his or her policies. People vote on the main themes and presume that the details will find a place.
Interesting question, the left is always open and the right is always xenophobic. Conservatives fear a change in the status quo, while the left welcomes change and see it as inevitable.
Speaking of change, how are Canadians adjusting to your newest and young Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau?
I am fascinated by the question as to why people vote the way they do, it is an endless pursuit of mine.
From what I understand, the left and right have a different meaning for Canadians, perhaps I can learn a little about them.
I've been out of the loop from Canadian politics but many Canadians voted for Trudeau simply because they were tired of Harper. It was still considered a surprise victory by most.
One issue I have with Trudeau is his generic pandering to feminism and women in general. For instance, he established a forced parity in cabinet by having 50% women and 50% men fill the positions. This is almost surely overlooking better suited candidates on the basis of gender, especially considering that the top tier positions in the cabinet are still male dominated (almost certainly because of their qualifications). His infamous rationale "because it's 2015," has people either mocking or lauding its progressive values (as someone who considers themselves left-leaning I think it's definitely mock-worthy).
The only other exposure I've been privy to is that of his Minister of International Trade Chrystia Freeland on Bill Maher's show. There she completely fails to understand the discussion about religious ideas and argues from a point of emotion, namely by spouting that all diversity is good and all cultures are equal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntv3a80 … Usa365News
While Trudeau wants to pander to feminists and women to achieve a forced gender equality, he simultaneously wants to pander to Muslims to achieve a forced gender segregation in the form of prayer rooms at Pearson airport. Would any other religion or group get away with that? Why is a secular country without an official religion yielding so much to a religion, especially one whose ideals are largely non-compatible with Canadian society?
These issues have me wondering if he is a progressive or a regressive, a term coined by Maajid Nawaz when describing certain factions of the left that allow intolerance and illiberal principles in the name of diversity and multiculturalism. I don't come from the same place ahorseback comes from, but if he is witnessing the same regressive left that I've come to know, then I can understand his frustration.
i guess that it is possible to go to far too the left, even for me.
I disagree with forced parity. The commitment to representation from as broad a spectrum of Canadian society is a noble goal, consistent with qualifications, of course.
I agree with your concern about pandering to any religion in a secular institution. But, here in the states, the bias is with Christian groups denying the rights of freedom of worship for anybody but them. We both agree with the neutrality of religion from a government secular point of view, we are just identifying the problem at extremes from opposite ends.
When the left is taken to further and further extremes, it can't help but to be indistinguishable from the reactionary right. That is the danger. But believe me, the 'Right' here is unreasonable. The definition of left and right are at differing poles in Canada, relative to the US. For example, you don't have people at either of your political poles advocating for 'right to carry' gun laws, do you?
Credence , you're going to have to provide an explanation for some by showing WHERE the Christian persecution IN THE US is but especially how much there is comparably to other religions . Got any facts , You're painting a grim picture to outsiders about America . Your first paragraph makes sense but the last two could easily be spoken of the left in America .
Bias from both the extremes of party affiliation is the culprit , don't be one of them , I am neither and I believe most Americans lay directly in the middle as well , it is the bias and loud voices of either party that do NOTHING but divide the masses , to say that Christianity is the cause of problems IN America is plain wrong though .
My issue is not with the typical family that goes to Sunday school once a week but with an organization, a diabolical wing of the political right. The Evangelical Christians organizing politically to effect an outcome on a secular society.
Arrogant and strident Christianity is not the sole cause of our problems, but certainly contributes.
This is an article from what might be considered a leftist source, but many of the points of complaint are well stated there.
http://www.alternet.org/belief/why-do-r … -faith-you
Let me know if I can provide additional clarification.
I'm sure some people voted for Obama because he is black. I'm sure some people voted against him because he is black. I'm sure some people voted for him because they felt he represented their values. I'm sure some people voted against him because they felt he did not represent their values.
Why does it offend you to hear that some white people don't like Obama because he is black? It is a fact. It is also a fact that some black people like him because he is black. Neither of those facts should be personally offensive.
It is the way of the world. It is okay to point out racism. A problem cannot be solved if one doesn't admit it exists.
I guess my very point is that I am not nor have I ever been a racist ! A very independent and critical conservative , Yes , wholeheartedly ! However it burns me up to have people so quickly push the racist button either on me or in many, many instances , to others who are critical of Obama's ideologies . Of all liberal or conservative presidents , Obama's style of "leadership " severely lacks bi-partisan participation . it lacks inclusivity to others , no matter what the ideology.
I actually have a daughter who is white, engaged to a man 50% black and 50% native American , and to have the "Race " button pushed whenever I critique this administration makes me realize more and more . Racism , is an extremely double edged sword ! AND , those who so quickly push said button , no matter what color they are ; are the real racists !
I don't have a racist bone in my body - and yet where do the accusations come from , what side of the fence do they always seem to originate ? I will let many here consider that point .
There are a lot of fine minds here in forums , a lot of great ideas and interpretations too , from both ideologies as well whether or not I acknowledge it . And I believe rhamson is most correct ! "..........while the politicians steal the house from us ......" there is no finer truth spoken in any forum than that .
No one denies that conservatives can be xenophobic , But then he who doesn't see value in tradition , and ignores the value of hindsight is destined to repeat the same history over and over again and to what end ? That is probably exactly why liberals speak the actual word with derision , as if somehow the wisdom gained from traditional values were the cause of our cultural issues today .
On the other hand having an open mind to change that is POSITIVE , is always a good thing , in the correct amount that is ! Yet , there are times when the" enlightened" left , only accepts change out of rejection of sameness , blind to the wisdoms of tradition . That is exactly why there is so much distance between the young and the old of OUR and in fact ,ANY cultures . The impatience of youth and inexperience against the steadfast and sometimes stoic views of age .
That is exactly why President Obama's careless re-opening of the old wounds of race , is in my opinion , not the best path that he could have chosen . He might have addressed racism in the systems of government in a far wiser way ,than to have played the" race card " from only one side of the fence . Pres. Obama is not a wise man . Simply by instituting a policy divisively , in fact he might have done so by policy instead of in rhetoric . That is why I believe he set back progress at least years and probably decades .
No one has to like my opinions , but as many on the left like to say , "There is only one truth ".
Morgan Freeman said once when asked about what we should do about racism and he said , "We've got to stop talking about it " , a very wise comment ! President Obama has been "beating the dead horse " of racism and simply to get it to rise up and keep plowing the fields of change .
Xenophobia of the right - has zero to do with racism today.
We are still here after an almost 240 year tradition, I think that is a lot of tradition. Everything has changed from the concept of powdered wig and knee breeches. If was impossible for these men (founding fathers) to anticipate the changes that a quarter of a millenium would bring. I am sure that they knew that and built the Constitution in a way to accomodate change.
If "sameness' is an impediment to needed progress to address a problem, its time for change.
There is a role for tradition and continuity and a role for change. The balance is what is in discussion.
It is easy for a million dollar actor to ignore the problem, because it does not affect him. Yes, we are going to talk about it, where ever it rears its head and adversely affect the life chances and treatment relative to others in all aspects of life in this society. We get improvement in these areas and we won't have to talk about it anymore. It is always easy to talk when you are not a victim.
Racism is a big part of xenophobia of the right, just ask Trump. Never seen rightwingers get all up in arms about flood of Danes or Canadians seeking entry.
I don't think Morgan Freeman meant to stop talking about racism altogether as a means to stop racism.
In that interview he was asked why he doesn't support black history month, and he noted that there is no white history month or Jewish history month or any other ethnic minority month. So why have a black history month? "Black history is American history" as he put it. The interviewer asked "how do we stop racism" implying that having a black history month stops racism somehow, and Freeman said to stop talking about "it."
I imagine that "it" is colour, not racism. Stop talking about colour and we might slowly get rid of racism.
Otherwise he's gone back on his word, because he talked about the Tea Party's racism and Freddie Gray's death since that interview.
He has gone back on his word because he knows that it cannot be eliminated from the conversation as it is inextricably weaved in the American body politic.
I wrote about the concept of Black History Month. I grew up in a time when the only contributors and meaningful achievers in American life were Anglos. I, me and mine were invisible. There was the guy that invented peanut butter and slavery was an unfortunate footnote. We all know about George Washington cutting down the cherry tree, what did we learn about MLK or Harriet Tubman or Malcolm X? What about Charles Drew, instrumental in the invention of blood plasma and transfusions?
American history has many inputs and we were not hearing about them. It was not until the 70's that the American story could be told from a different set of voices....
There is a Asian history month, an Hispanic history month and one, of course, for the women.
I think Morgan Freeman meant , to stop giving "todays" racism the fuel of rhetoric , the accomplishments of the fifties and sixties fight against instituted racism was a bloody success in general and accomplished much in a very short run AND justifiably so ! But the latest round" began again " with Obama's elections and for what exactly ? Simply for the proliferation of much needed liberal , youth and minority votes . Quite frankly by saying 'the sky is falling ' ie. racism , he was able to more than garner enough voting capital .
I took Morgan Freeman's comment to mean more , "lets be cautious" with rhetorical language .
by 910chris5 years ago
I have been hearing people say recently that because Obama has done such a poor job, and he is the first black president; it will be harder for another black person to become president. It made me think, so I am wanting...
by BillyDRitchie6 years ago
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that he is the first mixed race President? If so, why do the blacks get to claim him?I don't know about every state, but in Georgia, where I live, birth certificates list the...
by lady_love1586 years ago
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/ … traw-poll/Romney said FL is the state that picks presidents and Cain's impressive victory in FL sets him up as possibly the republican candidate to face Obama in 2012. I...
by GA Anderson16 months ago
In a conversation about racism in America today, a young relative, made this statement'"It is worse than it was six years ago!"It took me a moment to catch his drift. He is a young, (many times naive),...
by Credence217 months ago
Be it not for me to speak ill of a fellow Democrat, but Hillary Clinton disappoints. Please read the articles, I confess that Salon is a left leaning publication, but I have included the article placed by H. Clinton in...
by Holle Abee5 years ago
The POTUS is depicted on the cover of Newsweek with a rainbow halo over his head, and the caption reads, "The First Gay President." I don't think this is fair. Obama isn't gay, so it's misleading, at best.
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.