On being Black, African American & Obama

NAWDOG

Potential Star
Registered
By far the most thorough racial critique of Obama's candidacy. If dude can navigate the issue of race he deserves to be president.

<IFRAME SRC="http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/01/22/obama/" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/01/22/obama/">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Colorblind

I hate when unknown, press pool, journalist appoint themselves judge and jury and then start telling people what they should or shouldn't do. Even though some of the points she makes are valid, and redundant, she is as unproven as OBama.
 
Re: Colorblind

I never heard of her....she doesn't have a proven track record that I know of....what makes her opinion any better than the next person's..
 
Re: Colorblind

<font face="helvetica, verdana" size="3" color="#000000">
Debra Dickerson , Stanley Crouch, Ward Connerley, Clarence Page, Juan Williams.

What do they have in common. They all have articles appearing on the web, in major newspapers nationwide, and make frequent television appearances. They ALL are classified by the main-stream media as “SAFE” black pundits/ commentators. They ALL refuse to ever write or pontificate about white supremacy/ institutionalized racism. That is why they are classified as “SAFE” by the white owned main-stream media.

The most egregious recent example was how they pontificated about Hurricane Katrina. Clarence Page & Juan Williams both demonstrated why they are classified as “SAFE” during their time to comment about Katrina. On the program “The Mclaughlin Group” Page was asked by the host Mclaughlin if he felt that race had any factor in the bush administrations criminal response to the Katrina tragedy? Page said NO! , and went on to spew some pabulum about class and access to SUV’s. Mclaughlin looked at him as though he was crazy!! Williams was given 10 minutes on the nightly PBS news show “The News Hour´with Jim Lehrer to do a piece about Katrina. He also fumbled the ball and never mentioned racism once during the entire ten minute video. I’ll post the video as soon as I find it.

Cornell West, and Randall Robertson who both are classified as “NON-SAFE” by the main-stream media and a plethora of white pundits, in 5 minutes, spoke more truth-to-power about the conjunction of race & the response to Katrina than all the above named “SAFE” commentators did in hours. Debra <font color="#ff0000"><b>“The End of Blackness”</b></font> Dickerson’s credibility with me is slim to none.

Below is Clarence Page on PBS's news Hour as part of a discussion about Katrina. His remarks were so tepid, so detached. The white republican David Brooks shows more anger about what happened to Black people than Page. I'm still looking for the Juan Wiliams video
[wm]http://www.pbs.org/perl/media.cgir?t=w&f=virage/newshour/pbsnh090205_220k.asf&s=2406421&e=3281206&extn=.asx[/wm]
</font>
 
Last edited:
Re: Colorblind

nittie said:
I never heard of her....she doesn't have a proven track record that I know of....what makes her opinion any better than the next person's..
I didn't think that you had. As for as "proven track record" ... I'm not real sure what that means, for any writer. I tend to look at the conclusions they reach or opinions they make and see if they were supported by the underlying facts in the writing or article. For me, if those two don't really match or the facts are insufficient, I tend to have a big problem with the conclusion the writer wants me to reach.

QueEx
 
Re: Colorblind

muckraker10021 said:
<font face="helvetica, verdana" size="3" color="#000000">
Debra Dickerson , Stanley Crouch, Ward Connerley, Clarence Page, Juan Williams.

What do they have in common. They all have articles appearing on the web, in major newspapers nationwide, and make frequent television appearances. They ALL are classified by the main-stream media as “SAFE” black pundits/ commentators. They ALL refuse to ever write or pontificate about white supremacy/ institutionalized racism. That is why they are classified as “SAFE” by the white owned main-stream media.

The most egregious recent example was how they pontificated about Hurricane Katrina. Clarence Page & Juan Williams both demonstrated why they are classified as “SAFE” during their time to comment about Katrina. On the program “The Mclaughlin Group” Page was asked by the host Mclaughlin if he felt that race had any factor in the bush administrations criminal response to the Katrina tragedy? Page said NO! , and went on to spew some pabulum about class and access to SUV’s. Mclaughlin looked at him as though he was crazy!! Williams was given 10 minutes on the nightly PBS news show “The News Hour´with Jim Lehrer to do a piece about Katrina. He also fumbled the ball and never mentioned racism once during the entire ten minute video. I’ll post the video as soon as I find it.

Cornell West, and Randall Robertson who both are classified as “NON-SAFE” by the main-stream media and a plethora of white pundits, in 5 minutes, spoke more truth-to-power about the conjunction of race & the response to Katrina than all the above named “SAFE” commentators did in hours. Debra <font color="#ff0000"><b>“The End of Blackness”</b></font> Dickerson’s credibility with me is slim to none.
</font>
Safe. Unsafe. Debra hit on several themes in that piece, one of which harkens back to a thread that appeared on this board some time ago (a quick search revealed the thread has probably been long deleted). That is, an apparent schism, in the mind of some, real or imagined, <u>between</u> as she put it, African Americans descendant from slaves, <u>and</u> African immigrants to the U.S.

Is there really something to that ??? Is that one of those subsurface issues that could damage Obama's chances or, possibly, bring Black unity, if there is such a problem ??? Is that issue an external source of divide and conquer (white induced division) or is it self-induced, that is, something deep in the African American psyche ???

There are quite a few interesting points in the article that deserve some thought, but before we call her safe or unsafe, or whatever, what about what she said ???

QueEx
 
Re: Colorblind

This is definetly more a white issue then a black issue. Obama is not an immigrant he was raised in America as a black man. He faced the same struggles we all do being a minority in America. The majority of black people accept Obama as being black with no qualifications. The only people that are trying to make an issue of if his heritage is "black enough" are white people trying to divide and conquer and black people desparetly looking for a reason not to support Obama.

I don't have a problem if a black person doesn't support Obama based on his political beliefs however black people that base their dislike of Obama on the grounds of his "non-black ass" or "A non-black on the down low about his non-blackness" is bullshit.

She is taking shots at Obama because of who is mother is or where is father is from negating the EXPERIENCE he has had of growing up in America. That experience is what makes him a black American in my eyes.
 
Re: Colorblind

<font face="helvetica, verdana" size="3" color="#000000">
The schism between continental Africans and African Americans is caused primarily by the self-inflicted malady of ignorance.<br>
<div align="right"><table border="3" width="239" id="table1" cellspacing="1" bordercolorlight="#0000FF" bordercolordark="#0000FF" height="254" align="right"><!-- MSTableType="layout" --><tr><td><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/22/Nkrumah-King.jpg/239px-Nkrumah-King.jpg"><br><font size="2"><b>Kwame Nkrumah & Martin Luther King 1961</b></font></td> </tr></table></div> Martin Luther King attended Kwame Nkrumah’s inauguration on January 20, 1961. I’m sure you know the history and significance of Kwame Nkrumah. Dr. King’s speech about his thoughts about Kwame Nkrumah’s inauguration is awesome. In 1961 he’s talking about world African unity and the role Black Americans have to play. Malcolm X’s efforts to forge Pan-African unity via the –OAAU- are well known to anyone who knows World African History. It is no accident that all three were removed by white supremacist forces via assassination or coup d'état. “Safer” leaders were installed. Patrice Lumumba was also removed by the CIA in a coup d'état and replaced by the brutal despot Mobutu Sese Seko.

More than 50% of Black Americans are under the age of 30. They don’t know shit about Pan-Africanism. Too many of them have been programmed to spent their time trying to attain a diamond-encrusted Rolex. Buy and Read the book <font color="#ff0000"><b>TRIBES - How Race, Religion and Identity Determine Success in the New Global Economy</b></font>

<font color="#0000FF"><b>Black Americans ARE THE ONLY racial group in the US with NO tangible $$$$$$$$$ connection to the land of their origin.</b></font> The Black American connection to Africa is verbal only. Eight years ago I heard baller Alonzo Mourning & actor Will Smith both express amazement that they saw tall buildings and paved highways when they visited Africa.

Given such ignorance, it is incumbent on Black “pundits/ writers/ tv personalities/celebrities” to imbue their sound bites and written works with the central core that 400+ years of white supremacy has had consequences that affect the reality of 2007. Walter Mosely, Tavis Smiley, Randall Robertson, Derrick Bell , Charles Ogeltree, Maya Angelou and many others to a small to a great degree never forget this reality. You can see it in their written work & in their public appearances. The people that I mentioned above, and I’ll add John H. McWhorter who is currently the “SAFE” darling of the “media-of-mass-distraction”, all go out of their way to deny that 400+ years of white supremacy has had any consequences on Black Americans; past, present or future. Their posture is Rodney Kingesque “Can’t We All Get Along??”. I read their work but I reject such accommodationist.

<hr noshade color="#0000ff" size="10"></hr>
</font>
 
Last edited:
Re: Colorblind

QueEx said:
I didn't think that you had. As for as "proven track record" ... I'm not real sure what that means, for any writer. I tend to look at the conclusions they reach or opinions they make and see if they were supported by the underlying facts in the writing or article. For me, if those two don't really match or the facts are insufficient, I tend to have a big problem with the conclusion the writer wants me to reach.

QueEx

I guess this is your way of saying I agree. The point is when it comes to Black issues we have to deal with layers of bullshit from our own people. Relatively unknown Black journalist slandering people who have accomplished more than they ever will. Not saying Whites don't have problems of their own but I can't think of one Black pundit who has any influence in mainstream media.

I should know this woman. I published a newspaper for 4 yrs, I attended the NABJ on more than one occasion, managed 2 political campaigns, personally met Colin Powell, Ms King, Rosa Parks and several leaders of the Black gentry but her work is new to me or what I did hear from her didn't make an impression.
 
Re: Colorblind

No, it was my way of saying: read criticallly. It doesn't matter whether the journalist is a novice or a veteran -- its what he/she writes and what FACTS that the journalist provides in the article or piece to back up their conclusions.

A journalist/writer that has been around and is fairly well respected is more likely to make you a SHEEP because of that blind respect.

QueEx
 
<font size="5"><center>Black's Fine, Thanks: Writer Deborah Dickerson
Pulls the Obama Race Card</font size></center>


February 13, 2007

Senator Barack Obama is black. Deborah Dickerson, the author of THE END OF BLACKNESS (Pantheon books) made a recent appearance on The Colbert Report promoting her new book, and in the process argues Obama is technically not black: a divisive, inaccurate, and harmful claim given the challenges that black people face. I want to know why.

I. <u>If I'm black, Obama sure is</u>:

My brother-in-law is a brilliant defense attorney and professor, he thinks a lot about how people work and how they get themselves in and out of trouble. He hits me with the strangest ideas sometimes, like a year or so ago, he asked me, what do you prefer, black or African American? I said black. (My dad was born in Uganda, my mom's white; most of her side came from Ireland to work in the textile mills a century ago, both are US citizens.) He asked why. I said I didn't know, I just preferred black over African-American. And then I thought about it, and I realized it was an important question: black has no country, it cannot be divided, it can be a state-of-mind, it can be a color, it can be a culture, it can be a class, it can be a race, it can be inclusive. African-American, by contrast is wobbly and specific and hyphenated. I went for black, maybe it's my background in journalism, the Associated Press, for example, generally prefers the term black.

Here's a quick primer on the terms:

As the Civil Rights Movement evolved in the 1960s into the Black Power/Black Pride movement, these older terms lost favor and became associated with the pre-civil-rights situation of Blacks in America. Through this movement, the terms Black and Afro-American both emerged into common usage in the late 1960s. Due to this legacy, by 1980, the term Black had become accepted by a majority of Americans of African descent, and had also became the referential term applied by white Americans in general.

In the late 1980s, Blacks began to abandon the term Afro-American, adopting the autonym African American instead. Some did so out of a desire for an unabbreviated expression of their African heritage that could not be mistaken or derided as an allusion to the afro hairstyle. Others wished to assert their pride in their African origins. The term dated back at least to Black nationalist Malcolm X, who favored African American as more historically and culturally defining over other terms, and used it at an OAAU (Organization of Afro American Unity) meeting in the mid-1960s, saying, "Twenty-two million African Americans - that's what we are - Africans who are in America." However, it did not become widely used at that time. During the 1980s, the most influential proponent of the widespread adoption of the term was Jesse Jackson. Jackson and like-minded persons argued that African American was more in keeping with the United States tradition of "hyphenated Americans", which links people with their ancestors' geographic points of origin, and allows people to assert pride in their ethnic heritage, while maintaining an American national identity. (wikipedia)​

Paul Robeson Jr. puts another spin on the question when he writes in his new book, A BLACK WAY OF SEEING (Seven Stories Press): "the 'African-American' label fails to identify directly with the slave culture, since its reference is to pre-slavery times. Middle-class and upper-class blacks prefer this term because it distances them from the slave past." He prefers Black American (with caps).


Ok, for me - I'm black. Keep it simple. la-di-da. I continued on in my quiet life.

Since this summer, despite the dismal state of the world and all its suffering, I started to feel kinda optimistic about the whole thing ... the future. Yes, the future. Yes, I felt this sense that we can change things. I was even thinking hey - black in America! Things are getting better! Look, we got a black guy running for office and people aren't going nuts. I went to my brother's graduation from Northwestern University and saw thousands of white families stand and give Senator Barack Obama an ovation and I thought - holy shit! This IS something.

And then there were little - big - things like the Superbowl's two black coaches, Tony Dungy and Lovey Smith, and the 2007 Oscar nominations of Forest Whitaker (THE LAST OF SCOTLAND), Djimon Hounsou (BLOOD DIAMOND), Eddie Murphy and Jennifer Hudson (both for DREAMGIRLS). We're really making strides, I was thinking recently. And the worst thing of late that Obama's detractors had been saying about him was that he was a smoker. And that's pretty lame, it maybe even made him kind of movie-star dangerous and sexy - I wish you didn't
smoke, but I'm glad that you do! The first lady reportedly smokes, so I was feeling confident, even cautiously optimistic about the state-of-black as it were.

Now let's be real here: I work in New York City, the people who clean the bathrooms at my job look like me, the poor people who live in my gentrifying neighborhood look like me, the homeless people more often than not look like me, the street vendors look like me, the doormen look like me, the bus drivers look like me, the sales clerks at discount stores look like me, the Latin bodega people look like me, the hoods look like me ten years ago. All the second class citizens - we are all very much in common. And yes, Obama, looks like me.

Which is not to say, by the way, that blackness is only about the way you look, it's a state-of-mind (see paragraph 2 again if you don't get my drift.)

II. <u>Deborah Dickerson's world</u>:

So my husband and I were relaxing after dinner the other night, when we get a call from another brother-in-law, telling us to check out what Deborah Dickerson, author of THE END OF BLACKNESS (Pantheon books) is saying on the tube. Her latest book, aims to "both prove and promote the idea that 'blackness', as it's come to be understood, is a concept rapidly losing its ability to predict or manipulate the political and social behavior of black Americans." Ok fine, no real problem with that, Condoleeza Rice clearly fits that bill.

We tuned in with curiosity to The Colbert Report, and our mouths dropped as Stephen Colbert and Ms. Dickerson had the following conversation:

SC: Is Barack Obama black?

DD: No he's not, in the American political context, black means the son of West African, the descendant of West African slaves brought here to labor in the United States. It's not a put-down, it's not to say that he hasn't suffered. It's not to say that he doesn't have a glorious lineage of his own. It's just to say, that he and I, who am descended from West African slaves, brought to America. We are not the same.

SC: Okay, so if he's not black, why doesn't he just run as a white guy? Because we know black people will vote for white people and white people will vote for white people. But we're not sure white people will vote for black people. So it seems like by self identifying as a black man - 'cause he says that he's a black guy - he says, nobody thought a black guy born in Hawaii with a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas could actually win a race. So why doesn't he just
say, you know I'm a white guy, that I mean, then, it's a lock.

DD: Right, well he's not white either. He's an African, African-American. Or he is an American of -

SC: Should we think a new name for what he is?

DD: We do. We need a new name because there's a -

SC: What about nouveau black . . . (laughter) you know, late to the scene blackness.

DD: Well, we could go with black as circumstances allow but -

SC: That's not bad - I like that. Well I gotta say, Ms. Dickerson, I am disappointed in this. Because I was really looking forward to voting for a black guy - I was really hoping to leave the voting booth and say, hey I voted for a black guy.

DD: You can say I voted for an American of African, African-American. An American of African, immigrant stock. And he's also a person who has adopted, uh the role of being black. So he's not my, he's a brother, but he's an adopted brother. (Laughter) and the significance of this -

SC: Uh-huh (laughter)

DD: he's a beloved adopted brother. The significance of this -

SC: Seems like a red-headed step child, you can slap him around a little bit and nobody's gonna care.

DD: But we love him just the same.

SC: Okay alright but shouldn't black people jump on the Obama wagon? 'Cause if he doesn't have the burden of uh uh this past - of being the descendant of African slaves, he doesn't feel the black experience, can't he just sort of carry the torch and ya'll just piggy back on him?

DD: Well I think that's what's going to happen, I think Barack Obama is a wonderful person, we're proud of him, uh but, and this is not a critique of him, what this is a critique of white self-congratulation, of saying we're embracing a black person when we're not really, it's a way of - if he were a sub-Saharan African -

DD: (crosstalk) he would not get this love.

SC: Listen, if you hadn't told me, he wasn't black I would have thought that I was supporting a black person. And then, I would have been supporting all black people.

DD: Right.

SC: But now, I won't because he's not.

DD: Right, well then that would make you a racist.

SC: Mmm, if I were white. (Laughter) But I don't see race, okay because I've moved beyond that, I've developed beyond that. I'm so not a racist. I don't see race. People tell me I'm white and I believe them because I think that Barack Obama is black. (Laughter)

DD: He's an African, African-American.

SC: So it sounds to me like you are judging blackness not on the color of someone's skin but on the content of their character, which I think realized Dr. King's dream in a very special way. (Laughter)

DD: I think you mean not so much special as perverted. (Laughter) But, um, I think that, uh. You've got me so confused here. It's not so much the content of our character it's the content of our history and our culture and what we're doing by calling him black is obliterating the culture of his Kenyan father.

SC: Well, wouldn't this be, would this make it more acceptable to the African-American community if he shared some of the experience, the black American experience, and he wasn't the descendant of slaves, but what if for a brief period of time he were enslaved? (Laughter) And
then uh, but nothing racist, he could be like Jesse Jackson's slave or Al Sharpton's slave? (Laughter) And then they could say like, you know, you're free now - and you know no foul, no harm, and then he has all the street cred he needs? (Laughter)

DD: (Pause laughter ) . . . I think you may have me there.​

There is laughter throughout this interview and it seems that Colbert and the audience are getting a good laugh at the expense of Ms. Dickerson.

Perhaps it should be said second that Dickerson skims over the facts - any standard reference will tell you that, "about three-quarters of the slaves came from West Africa and the remaining quarter came from the (south-central) Angola-Congo region." For someone arguing so vigorously for precision, she is more at the service of her agenda than accuracy.

And her theory or her agenda isn't very elegant. Colbert is just smart enough to get Dickerson turned around, and all she can do is admit, "you've got me so confused". Anyone in mathematics or science will tell you that the highest praise is an elegant answer, Dickerson, when she's explaining her ideas, has nothing elegant about it. The audience knows BS when they hear it - what a clunky theory - and they all laugh as she flounders trying to explain how Senator Barack Obama is not - I repeat not - an African-American but is in fact an African, African-American.

III. <u>Why all the drama Ms. Dickerson</u>?

Dickerson's website raves that her work "has been featured in Best American Essays" and that she "has won the New York Association of Black Journalists' first-place award for personal commentary. Her first book, AN AMERICAN STORY, received rave reviews from the New York Times, Washington Post, and more! " Credentials established, her bio says she got her B.A. in Government & Politics from the University of Maryland and worked in the military as an Intelligence Officer. Later she earned her masters in International Relations and even worked on President Clinton's first election campaign, "and learned that I had no stomach for elective politics."

What I find interesting is why an apparently educated person would work against her interests as a black woman. (And yes, black people have common interests, they are human interests - to have the opportunities, chances and access of the American Dream.) Why would she attack Obama in this way? I wondered. Could it be that she has no idea the damage she might do - creating a spiritual rift among blacks - could she be willing to do this simply in the service of her own ambition? If so, the damage she is willing to inflict is staggering, especially since the man at the center of this conversation is a black man and a man who white people are actually taking seriously. So seriously, in fact, that with the Obama announcement this weekend, Australian Prime Minister John Howard launched this premature ejaculation:

"If I were running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats."

(Australia's Nine Network)

Saturday Night Live this weekend took a more humorous turn on this topic, with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton: both men gave Obama advice on how to appeal to whites and not be too black. The skit highlighted just how hard it is for black men to be taken seriously in politics.

In her quest to be specific, she's lost the big picture. What she has forgotten is that marginalized groups are stronger together and weaker divided. Those in power will do their damnedest to divide the weak. We don't need to help them do it. Think big picture lady. John Howard doesn't need you assistance!

For me, the most telling nugget is when she argues the following, "And he's also a person who has adopted, uh the role of being black. So he's not my, he's a brother, but he's an adopted brother." Firstly, she has a creepy way of insinuating that Obama is "acting" and by his "taking a role", she intimates that there is something illegitimate or put-on by his actions. This is a very aggressive assertion, especially when talking about a politician, who trades on his credibility, on his being trusted and "real", the real deal, I know where he stands: We elect people for the most ephemeral reasons and she's futzing with the ether. And then she asserts, "he's not my... brother" Why not? Why would someone not be your full brother? Why would you not claim full kinship with someone else? Why the attenuated status? I'd say someone were my sister if she were white with blond hair and green eyes, if I truly felt we had a bond. To say someone is your sister or brother is to say that you are family, that you are a friend you'd go to bat for. Surely, we all have people in our lives who are not exactly the same as us. Dickerson is calling for a break. And she's absolutely out of her mind.

But then, there are always those, who recognizing their weakened position, find the best way to get close to power is to lose sight of their own interests, to forget who they are, to conflate their interests with the powerful, which reminds me of a joke I heard recently:

Two men walk into a bar. They take a seat and order two drinks.

The barman says: we don't serve ******s here.

The black guy gets up and leaves. The man next to him says, I'm Puerto Rican.

The man behind the bar says, I didn't ask you what kind of ****** you are, I said we don't serve ******s here.

I think we all laugh hardest at these folks, who lose sight of where they are. And I'm really sorry it is a black woman who's working away, as if with a jackhammer, at old wounds.


Dickerson's whole message seems all the more shocking given the challenges ahead. There are many people in the world who deserve a spot on a show like The Colbert Report and by that I mean a more prominent place in the national media discussion.

I really shouldn't speak about black people collectively (anymore than I already have) but what the hell: We blacks in America need to wake up to the needs of other people of color beyond and inside our borders and also to the tremendous resources we have in our hearts and in our own relative material wealth (as compared to those living elsewhere). My aunt and my cousins in Kampala, Uganda easily sleep eight in a room, sharing a bunk bed, and they get malaria on and off throughout the year because they don't always have money for the medicine. Those who have serious health problems usually die: My cousin Kakooza died of a seizure a couple years ago, maybe he would have lived had he gotten better care in the US. These aren't even the worst stories, but this is what is happening and American blacks need to become acquainted with the totality of what is happening to us. It's great what Oprah's doing, maybe more celebrities will follow suit. And maybe, just maybe, regular folks, will start seeing that there is a connection and that highlighting differences and specificities have their place, but to what end? We can change our destiny: We don't have to be defined solely by the circumstances of our victimization, wherever it may have happened. Slavery and colonialism were victimization, but victimization is not culture, ethnicity or class. For example, say I was abused as a kid, that's part of me, but that's not all of who I am. I am not, Logan-abused person. I am Logan writer, wife, lousy singer, friend of Lucy and Pearl, etc. etc.

Even if I were to indulge Ms. Dickerson's neurosis about defining "blackness", I think it would soon become clear that in regards to blackness - what is more important is what unifies us, not what divides.

That's a healing lesson that Obama can share with this entire country. This is a message this country needs and perhaps is part of his widespread appeal; people want something better for this country.

Words have weight, and what we call ourselves matters. Ms. Dickerson, it seems, would argue for a narrow, specific and divided view of what black culture is. But it's more complicated and juicy than that.




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/logan-nakyanzi-pollard/blacks-fine-thanks-wri_b_41050.html
 
Last edited:
<font face="verdana" size="3" color="#000000">
The false construct of racial identity, particularly as it pertains to the demotion of darker skinned people to an inferior, even sub-human status ,has been fairly constant since the mid 1400’s. In 1455 Pope Nicholas V’s papal ‘<i>Bull Romanus Pontifex</i>’ dehumanized all “people of color” and gave (moral???) sanction for Catholics worldwide to enslave Africans & rape, plunder, and kill brown skin people they had labeled Indians. In 1562 the Anglican religion British joined the Portuguese in the lucrative African slave trade. The queen of England, Queen Elizabeth (ancestor of the current Queen Elizabeth) donated two of her own ships, the <i>‘Jesus of Lubeck’</i> and the <i>’Minion’</i> in a business venture with slaver John Hawkins, to reap the huge profits slavery provided.

Fast forward to today. Racial identity in AmeriKKKa in 2007 is still determined by the hackneyed “One Drop Rule”. Unscientific, and arbitrary the “One Drop Rule” still prevails. Tiger Woods, Halle Berry, Jason Kidd, Derek Jeter and Barack Obama are all considered ‘Black’ predicated on this anachronistic rule.

Debra Dickinson’s pronouncement that Barack is not ‘Black’ is just plain stupid. Colbert in the video below is clowning her stupidity. In AmeriKKKa,Tiger Woods, Halle Berry, Jason Kidd, Derek Jeter and Barack Obama could never identify themselves as anything other than Black and be looked upon as sane. Woods about 8 years ago said he was a CABLASIAN; how far did he get with that. :D :D</font><p>
<hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="8"></hr><p>

<embed FlashVars='config=http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/xml/data_synd.jhtml?vid=81955%26myspace=false' src='http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/syndicated_player/index.jhtml' quality='high' bgcolor='#006699' width='340' height='325' name='comedy_player' align='middle' allowScriptAccess='always' allownetworking='external' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer'></embed>

<hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="8"></hr><p>
[FRAME]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/mixed/onedrop.html[/FRAME]
<p>
<hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="8"></hr><p>

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nODHv2gxTTo"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nODHv2gxTTo" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
<p>
<hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="8"></hr><p>
 
Last edited:
<font face="verdana" size="3" color="#000000">
The false construct of racial identity, particularly as it pertains to the demotion of darker skinned people to an inferior, even sub-human status ,has been fairly constant since the mid 1400’s. In 1455 Pope Nicholas V’s papal ‘<i>Bull Romanus Pontifex</i>’ dehumanized all “people of color” and gave (moral???) sanction for Catholics worldwide to enslave Africans & rape, plunder, and kill brown skin people they had labeled Indians. In 1562 the Anglican religion British joined the Portuguese in the lucrative African slave trade. The queen of England, Queen Elizabeth (ancestor of the current Queen Elizabeth) donated two of her own ships, the <i>‘Jesus of Lubeck’</i> and the <i>’Minion’</i> in a business venture with slaver John Hawkins, to reap the huge profits slavery provided.

Fast forward to today. Racial identity in AmeriKKKa in 2007 is still determined by the hackneyed “One Drop Rule”. Unscientific, and arbitrary the “One Drop Rule” still prevails. Tiger Woods, Halle Berry, Jason Kidd, Derek Jeter and Barack Obama are all considered ‘Black’ predicated on this anachronistic rule.

Debra Dickinson’s pronouncement that Barack is not ‘Black’ is just plain stupid. Colbert in the video below is clowning her stupidity. In AmeriKKKa,Tiger Woods, Halle Berry, Jason Kidd, Derek Jeter and Barack Obama could never identify themselves as anything other than Black and be looked upon as sane. Woods about 8 years ago said he was a CABLASIAN; how far did he get with that. :D :D</font><p>
<hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="8"></hr><p>

<embed FlashVars='config=http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/xml/data_synd.jhtml?vid=81955%26myspace=false' src='http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/syndicated_player/index.jhtml' quality='high' bgcolor='#006699' width='340' height='325' name='comedy_player' align='middle' allowScriptAccess='always' allownetworking='external' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer'></embed>

<hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="8"></hr><p>
[FRAME]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/mixed/onedrop.html[/FRAME]
<p>
<hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="8"></hr><p>

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nODHv2gxTTo"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nODHv2gxTTo" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
 
<div align="left">
<!-- MSTableType="layout" --><br>
<img src="http://images.salon.com/src/cover/salonlogo_p.gif" align="left"></div><font face="arial black" size="5" color="#d90000">
Awkward Discussions of Race and Obama</font>
<font face="helvetica, verdana" size="3" color="#000000"><b>


by Glenn Greenwald

February 12, 2007</b>

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/02/12/obama/index.html

<br>The luminous roundtable on Meet the Press yesterday had what appears from <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17065119/">the transcript</a> to be a rather awkward discussion of the role of race in Barack Obama's candidacy, with Howard Kurtz <a href="http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/11/is-obama-black-enough-huh/">raising a question</a> with which people like <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2158010/&amp;#obamablackvoters">Mickey Kaus</a> and <a href="http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/02/post_2237.php">Glenn</a> <a href="http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/01/post_1988.php">Reynolds</a> seem strangely <a href="http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/01/post_1923.php">obsessed</a>: &quot;Is [Obama] black enough to get support in the African-American community?&quot; In the middle of that discussion, the Politico's Roger Simon said <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17065119/page/4/">this</a>:
<blockquote>If America actually nominates him and then votes for him for president and elects him, this will be a sign that we are a good and decent country that has healed its racial wounds. Now, Jesse Jackson had a same subtext, but Barack Obama is a much different politician than Jesse Jackson -- much less threatening, much more appealing, and he actually has the ability to carry this off.</blockquote>
One could say, I suppose, that Jesse Jackson was more ideological and further to the left than Obama is -- though I think that is far from clear at this point. But even if one believes that, in what conceivable sense was Jesse Jackson &quot;threatening&quot; in a way that Obama is not? Jackson -- whatever else one might think of him -- is a Christian minister whose speeches almost invariably were grounded in religious concepts of faith, hope, charity, and aiding the impoverished and disadvantaged, and were free of racially inflammatory rhetoric, or any type of notably inflammatory rhetoric. Even for those who disagreed with Jackson politically, in what sense could he be viewed as &quot;threatening&quot;? <br />
<br>Anonymous Liberal wrote <a href="http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2007/02/case-for-obama.html">a post</a> this weekend confessing that he has become smitten with Obama, and it is clear from his post that he has indeed succumbed to The Obama Spell. A.L. pronounces that he is &quot;more convinced than ever that Obama is the strongest candidate in the field.&quot; After I read A.L.'s post, we exchanged a couple of e-mails about the extent to which Obama's race would be an impediment to his electoral prospects. A.L. thinks that the impediment would be slight, and even might have the opposite effect, on balance, of energizing white voters over the prospect of electing a black president (in his post, he cites Deval Patrick's resounding victory as Masschusettes Governor as evidence of this dynamic).
<br>Possibly. But what seems clear, at the very least, is that Obama's candidacy is going to compel very candid discussions of race in venues which typically avoid such discussions desperately, opting instead to pretend that racial issues simply are non-existent. And that, in turn, is going to generate all kinds of revealing and (to put it generously) awkward remarks of the type made by Joe Biden and Roger Simon.
<br>Look at how racially charged the &quot;controversies&quot; over Obama have already been -- not only the<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/"> fictitious claims</a> about his &quot;madrassa&quot; education, but also <span style="background-color: #FFFF42"><b>Tucker Carlson's <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200702090009">insinuations</a> over the past few days that Obama's church is too black to be Christian. And ABC News' Jake Tapper and Katie Hinman <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Politics/story?id=2867210&amp;page=1">took Carlson's innuendo a step further</a> yesterday by claiming that unnamed &quot;critics&quot; want to know if Obama's church &quot;is too militant to be accepted by mainstream America&quot; (h/t rk).
<br>That was an insinuation that seemed to echo the very inflammatory claims in <a href="http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&amp;status=article&amp;id=254362714252786">this editorial</a> from Investors Business Daily, which asserted that Obama's &quot;religion has little to do with Islam and everything to do with a militantly Afrocentric movement that's no less troubling.&quot; The Editorial added that &quot;Obama embraced more than Christ when he answered the altar call 20 years ago at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Southside Chicago&quot; -- he embraced the &quot;gospel of blackness and black power,&quot; a fact which &quot;should give American voters pause.&quot; These accusations seem designed to suggest that perhaps Obama is not as &quot;non-threatening&quot; as Simon condescendingly claimed. Maybe he is a black militant. </b></span>
<br>It is always preferable to have views and sentiments -- even ugly ones -- aired out in the open rather than forcing them into hiding through suppression. And part of the reason people intently run away from discussions of race (just as they stay away from discussions of Middle East political disputes, specifically ones involving Israel) is because it is too easy to unwittingly run afoul of various unwritten speech rules, thereby triggering accusations of bigotry. That practice has the effect of keeping people silent, which in turn has the effect of reinforcing the appearance that nobody thinks about race (which is why nobody discusses it), which in turn prevents a constructive discussions of hidden and unwarranted premises.
<br>For that reason, scouring people's comments about Obama and race, in search of evidence of even minor deviations from speech mores, is not really constructive. But it is notable just how many implicit assumptions about race lurk beneath these observations.
<br>And it is even more notable how freely these patronizing sentiments are being expressed in the context of Obama's candidacy, often -- as in Biden's and Simon's case -- expressed as though they are compliments (he is so clean and articulate, he is so non-threatening, he seems like one of the moderate ones, he isn't really &quot;militant&quot;), because the speakers are not even consciously aware of the implications of those assumptions. It can be unpleasant to watch people struggle with these awkward discussions, but, on balance, anything which forces these issues more out into the open is probably a positive development.
<br><U>UPDATE</U>: Pam Spaulding has a characteristically nuanced and <a href="http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=725">insightful discussion</a> below of some of the difficulties which people -- both white and black -- are encountering when discussing race in the context of Obama's candidacy.</font>

<font face="arial black" size="5" color="#d90000">
Obama and Race: Our Country Is So Confused </font><font face="helvetica, verdana" size="3" color="#000000"><b>

February 12th 2007

by Pam Spaulding</b>

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=D7C3745AAF539128BCD808A06C224DF2?diaryId=725

I was <a href="http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=692" target="_blank">out of town</a> for a few days, and was, by necessity, mainstream media and blog-free during that time. While at the airport, I saw that Barack <a href="http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/02/021007obama.htm" target="_blank">Obama finally launched his official bid for the White House</a>, and it's clear that the ways his race is being addressed exposes the inability of people -- white or black -- to discuss race rationally or logically.
<br>Some of that lies in the conundrum of what defines race. It has been fascinating over the last couple of weeks to see the complete sanity breakdown in commentary on Obama's heritage, with the Illinois senator being chastised by blacks for not being &quot;authentically black&quot;&nbsp; -- witness Stanley Crouch in his column&nbsp; <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/467300p-393261c.html" target="_blank">What Obama isn't: black like me</a>:
<blockquote>After all, Obama's mother is of white U.S. stock. His father is a black Kenyan. Other than color, Obama did not - does not - share a heritage with the majority of black Americans, who are descendants of plantation slaves.</blockquote>
It's an interesting fact that Obama is not the descendant of West African slaves, but isn't Crouch really saying something else here? I think there is a discomfort with Obama by these naysayers of color that is questioning something else -- Obama's fealty to those in the black community who have made a career out of a particular framing of cultural and political &quot;blackness.&quot;
<br>Apparently, to some black folks, you aren't &quot;kin&quot; if you don't:<br />
* have at least one biological parent who is black (and now the new caveat, a parent who is a descendant of slaves)<br />
* act culturally black enough (the definition of which is ludicrously subjective) <br />
* you don't have direct ties to the civil rights movement hierarchy that is entrenched in the Democratic Party.
<br>Since Barack Obama isn't speaking about race as defined by the self-proclaimed powers that be, to those in the black Democratic establishment -- in elective office, MSM talking heads, and the party hangers-on -- there's a palpable sense of insecurity playing itself out that is embarrassing. See the debacle after the jump.

How bad is it? Illinois Senate President Emil Jones Jr. <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2602.html" target="_blank">lanced the boil</a> and finally took it public:
<blockquote>&quot;How long are you going to owe politicians for past favors?&quot; Jones asked in a speech Friday to more than 100 members of the Democratic National Committee's black caucus&nbsp; and other political operatives gathered at the Washington Hilton for the winter meeting of the DNC, according to people who were there.
<br>...&quot;The one thing that was extraordinarily clear this weekend is that many African-American political operatives are very conflicted internally about whether to support Obama or Clinton,&quot; he said.
<br>...Jones' call was received frostily by Clinton allies, including Minyon Moore, the former White House aide who now heads Hillary Clinton's black outreach,&nbsp; and former Clinton and Gore campaign aide Donna Brazile, according to some attendees.
<br>Moore walked out of the room when Jones stopped speaking, according to two people who were there.&nbsp; Moore said Sunday she'd left because she had somewhere else to be, and that she would &quot;agree to disagree&quot; with Jones.
</blockquote>
Whew. That was <em>so</em> necessary. The fact that Hillary Clinton is trying to cash in the political chips won by her Bill Clinton in the community is no surprise -- the fact that she feels that she deserves the chips (and that her own black allies are faced with questions about their support for her) exposes the &quot;authenticity&quot; dust up again. Obama has to earn black votes, as does Senator Clinton. End of story. Well, I think <a href="http://talking-stuff.blogspot.com/2007/02/barack-obama.html" target="_blank">Classicrose</a> said it quite well.
<blockquote>Why are the black folks at the top troubled? So now it's a requirement that to be really black you must be descended from West African slaves. Do the Census folks know about this? Just create a new category for black folks who's families voluntarily immigrated to the U.S from Africa and the Caribbean. Even if their ancestors were slaves in the Caribbean, according to the black gatekeepers they're not black. Let's see how quickly the heads would spin on the black gatekeepers if the number of blacks decreased dramatically from 35,000,000 plus.</blockquote>
This kind of hair splitting is mind bending.
<br>Is this a <a href="http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/2/184024/2536#commenttop" target="_blank">generational split</a> that involves fragile political egos of black &quot;leadership,&quot; or a deeper, more bizarre internal conflict about political racial purity and class? Perhaps. <strong>What I do know is that no matter how you slice it, Barack Obama, in this country, at this time in its history, is black</strong>. The man himself knows the deal, and said so on CBS's 60 Minutes (which aired tonight):
<blockquote>When asked by Kroft if growing up in a white household had caused him to <strong>make a decision to be black</strong>, Obama replies, &quot;I'm not sure I decided it. I think ? <strong>if you look African-American in this society, you're treated as an African-American</strong>. It's interesting though, that now I feel very comfortable and confident in terms of who I am and where I stake my ground. But I notice that ? I've become a focal point for a racial debate.&quot; </blockquote>
There's no such thing as a &quot;post-racial&quot; candidate when you <strong>look black</strong>. In this country, Obama can still be followed in a store suspected of being a shoplifter, be passed by a cab driver afraid to pick him up, or stopped by a police officer for &quot;driving while black.&quot; In none of these cases would it matter if Barack Obama pulled out a family picture to show he's half white.
<br>I think this is what frustrates me with well-meaning white people who say they &quot;don't see color.&quot; Of course you do. Our culture is steeped in race, and the history isn't pretty; its legacy plays itself out today. That's not said to engender guilt, but simply to say that race is irrelevant or has no impact on today's society because you or recent generations of your family didn't own slaves isn't helpful. Denial short circuits difficult discussions that need to occur. The defensiveness of these vocal blacks in regards to race is playing itself out so pathologically in the case of Obama -- I welcome it, I only hope that it might lead to more productive conversations about why people think about him the way they do.
<br>I discussed this whole Obama race thing over dinner with wifey Kate a couple of weeks ago, because both of us have interesting and relevant heritage that has made us think about race in many ways. She's half Lebanese, with a family that has been in the country for generations. She doesn't particularly look Middle Eastern, since her mother is white and fair. Other relatives in her family are very ethnic looking. It's a roll of the genetic dice as our population mixes and merges.
<br>I have a lighter complexion, but I'm the product of two light-skinned parents, who themselves were born of lighter-skinned blacks and black/Native American or West Indian heritage. I clearly cannot pass for white, but obviously I have white relatives somewhere in there, but they are generations back in the family tree. When I compare my heritage to that of Obama's, I often wonder how being biracial is perceived in this country in comparison to someone who is a fair-skinned black who is not biracial.
<br>In the quest to assign some level of &quot;blackness&quot; to Barack Obama by both whites and blacks, I think some exercises are useful.
<br>Think about these questions, answer and discuss:
<br>1. Two people who are standing before you, one biracial, one fair-skinned black, and <strong>both appear to be black</strong> because of their physical features. How would you categorize them?
<br>2. Two people who are standing before you, <strong>one biracial person who appears to be black, one fair-skinned black who appears to be white</strong> because of their physical features. How would you categorize them? What if the situations are reversed -- any difference?
<br>3. In subsequent conversations with them, it can make a race assignment solely on appearance more difficult; how will you weigh:<br />
* the whole &quot;articulate&quot; thing (the <a href="http://www.pamspaulding.com/weblog/2004/12/nyt-acting-white-myth.html" target="_blank">Acting White</a> phenomenon playing itself out)<br />
* their perceived level of education<br />
* how they personally identify re: race<br />
* their political affiliation (and/or identification with the perceived leaders of the civil rights movement)<br />
* the amount <U>you</U> identify with them (the cultural commonalities versus the physical differences)
<br>There are no right or wrong answers here -- it's simply a chance to think out loud about how it takes a great deal of deliberate thought to analyze how we view race, class, and culture in our daily lives. What we choose to do about it as a result of that self-reflection is our choice.
<br>It just appears that people simply aren't thinking very hard (or perhaps too hard) about these deeper perceptions about race when it comes to Obama. I'm not surprised, since it's clear a sizeable number of people either cannot or refuse to look inward and reflect on our need to place people in neat racial and ethnic boxes to make it easier to keep the system we have in place -- as uncomfortable as it is -- because it is familiar. Obama's rise changes the rules of the game, and those already in the game (on both sides) don't want those rules to change.
<br>Related:<br />
* <a href="http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/39/barack_obama" target="_blank">Barack Obama on 60 Minutes</a><br />
* <a href="http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/01/obamas-skin-causes-iqs-to-drop-sharply.html" target="_blank">Waveflux @ Shakes Sis</a> </font>
 
<font size="5"><center>Questions about Obama's race defy logic</font size></center>


S2006fellow_cooper.jpg

by Kenneth J. Cooper
BLACK PRESS USA
NNPA

Some African-Americans think Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., isn't really Black. Anyone with unimpaired vision can see that he is. A couple of contrarian commentators and other folks are trying to read him out of the race because of his mixed parentage and his childhood spent in distant places.

His father was a Black African, his mother a White American, and he lived in Hawaii and Indonesia with White grandparents as a child, his critics point out. All facts — but they don't erase his racial identity.

What troubles commentators Stanley Crouch, Debra J. Dickerson and others is that Obama may have had no ancestors who were slaves and didn't experience segregation or the fight for civil rights, according to a recent article in the New York Times.

Debates about who is an ''authentic'' Black rarely have any merit. This one is particularly mindless and pointless.
People who identify themselves as African-American are disassociating themselves from someone who is half African. What sense does that make? It used to be ''one drop'' of Black blood made you black. Now being half Black is not enough? Using that standard, the Census count of African-Americans would plummet.

The Congressional Black Caucus has no doubts about Obama's race and has accepted him as a member. There is no sensible reason for others to refuse to do so.
Since when did you have to be descended from slaves to be Black? Slaves yearned to be free. They did not think that being enslaved defined who they were.

A man in the 21st century who embraces his Blackness and whose ancestors may have been forever free should be celebrated, not dismissed from the race. Not that it matters, but it may be that not all of Obama's forbears were free. Through the 1800s, Arabs conducted a slave trade in East Africa, including Kenya, where his father was born.
It is illogical to assert that to be Black you have to have lived through segregation and the civil rights movement. What about young people born after those eras?

Ronald Walters, an eminent political scientist, appeared to lump Obama together with ''people who come into the country.'' Dickerson, in an essay for the Salon.com webzine, flat out calls the senator ''an immigrant.'' To give the story a common-man touch, the Times even quoted a Washington, D.C., barber who mistakenly claimed that Obama is ''from another nationality.''

Obama was born in Honolulu in 1961. Hawaii became a state in 1959. That makes the senator an American by birth, and thus eligible to be president under the Constitution.

Clearly, it's absurd to assert that Obama is not Black because his father was from another country. Nobody disputes these people are Black: Malcolm X, whose mother was born in Grenada; Louis Farrakhan, whose mother was from St. Kitts and whose father was from Jamaica; or the late congresswoman Shirley Chisholm, whose mother was from Barbados, and whose father was from Guyana. How about Stokely Carmichael — Mr. ''Black Power,'' born in Trinidad — or Marcus Garvey, the Pan-Africanist from Jamaica? Were they not Black?

You can be the child of immigrants, or an immigrant yourself, and be Black too!
That Obama once lived in a far-flung place like Indonesia does not affect his race. What about the children of African-American diplomats, executives or missionaries who live abroad and often attend fancy private schools in the host countries? Are those children not Black?

Crouch and Dickerson apparently define being Black as a condition of deprivation and struggle. The problem with that narrow definition is that African-Americans won't be Black any longer once equality is achieved.

There is no logic in disputing the race of the only Black U.S. senator at the moment, just the fifth one ever, who is popular and launching a plausible campaign for the presidency. How does this muddled criticism advance Black political empowerment?

There are legitimate questions to be raised about Obama's experience, temperament, worldview and stance on the issues of the day. There is no question about his race.


Kenneth J. Cooper, a Pulitzer Prize winner, is a freelance journalist based in Boston.

http://www.blackpressusa.com/Op-Ed/speaker.asp?SID=16&NewsID=12279
 
<font size="4">

This next post: The Great Black-White Hope
-- Please read carefully and critically.

</font size>

I've read some damn good minds on this board; I'd like to read
their thoughts, especially some of those that don't post on this
side on a regular basis, with respect to the post that follows.



`
 
njlogo-col.gif

Opening Argument | by Stuart Taylor Jr.


<font size="5"><center>The Great Black-White Hope </font size>
<font size="4">An Obama win in 2008 would be by far the best
thing that has happened to African-Americans,
and to race relations, in more than 50 years.</font size></center>

D.C. Dispatch | February 6, 2007


dc-w.gif
hether Barack Obama would be a better president than Hillary Rodham Clinton, or John McCain, or Mitt Romney is an interesting and debatable question. But it is beyond debate that an Obama win in 2008 would be by far the best thing that has happened to African-Americans, and to race relations, in more than 50 years.

Obama embodies and preaches the true and vital message that in today's America, the opportunities available to black people are unlimited if they work hard, play by the rules, and get a good education.

Electing a charismatic, intellectually supercharged African-American president who preaches hope and opportunity would do more than anything else imaginable to tell young black people what they need to hear: This land is your land. And more than any other, it is a land of opportunity.



We can also relegate to the dustbin of history the snake-oil salesmen who have been anointed by the media as the leaders of black America, even as they have used their prominence to poison race relations while (in many cases) living high on the hog. These include Jesse Jackson, aptly dubbed "an extortion artist for the grievance elite" by black conservative Shelby Steele; Jackson competitor Al Sharpton, the dishonest demagogue who rose to prominence by orchestrating the infamous 1987 Tawana Brawley "rape" fraud; NAACP Chairman Julian Bond and much of the rest of the current leadership of that deeply degraded shell of a once-noble organization, which even now is emulating Sharpton by doing its utmost to keep alive the collapsing Duke lacrosse team "rape" fraud; the victimologist professors who dominate most university departments of African-American studies; and the fatuous slavery reparations movement.

"It is almost analgesic to talk about what the white man is doing against us," as Bill Cosby told the annual convention of Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition in 2004. "It keeps you frozen in your hole you are sitting in."

Yes, a shamefully large percentage of black children do not get good educations. But that is not because of residual white racism. Indeed, some of the nation's worst—and most lavishly funded—schools are run by black-dominated local governments. Nor is "white privilege," to borrow the jargon of race-obsessed professors, a major obstacle to black success today.

Another benefit of electing Obama would be to help shrink that residue of white racism to vestigial proportions. How would white racists explain away the intellectual distinction that brought Obama high honors at Harvard Law School and the presidency of its prestigious law review?

It's true that many African-American voters eye Obama warily. One reason is that jealous black "leaders," rightly in fear of being eclipsed, suggest that he might not be "black enough." There is also something to Peter Beinart's assertion in The New Republic that for a man such as Obama, "the more whites love you, the more you must reassure your own community that you are still one of them. And the more you do that, the more you jeopardize your white support."

For this reason Obama, like every other Democratic presidential candidate, must pay ritual obeisance to Sharpton and Jackson lest he offend the many black voters who still identify with them. But he seems deft enough to do that without falling into the trap of dignifying the lie that white America is still oppressing black America.

What of the fact that this son of a Kenyan father and a white Kansan, raised in Indonesia by his mother and stepfather, and in Hawaii by white grandparents, has not fully felt what it is to be a descendant of American slaves? None of that matters much. Obama's soaring success should tell black children everywhere that they, too, can succeed, and they do not need handouts or reparations. It should tell those white Americans who still don't get it that people with African blood can and regularly do achieve at the highest levels.

It should not take an Obama presidency to drive home these lessons. But the myth of continuing African-American victimhood still has the power to wilt the hopes and aspirations of more children every day.

One reason for the power of the myth is that, for many, it represents an understandable inference from the fact that America remains racially stratified, with disproportionate numbers of blacks at the bottom in terms of education, wealth, and income. The inference is mistaken. Even if all traces of white racism were to vanish, racial stratification would persist until more poor African-American children get enlightened parenting and good educations.

The other reason for the power of the myth is the drumbeat of publicity wildly exaggerating the persistence and pervasiveness of white racism that is churned out on a daily basis by onetime civil-rights groups such as the NAACP, by too many black politicians, by academia, and by the media.

All of this has contributed to a crippling loss of hope among underprivileged (and even some more-affluent) black people. This despondency has not been dispelled by 30 years of racial preferences. It will not be dispelled by another 30 years of the same. And more racial preferences, forever, are just about the only remedies that the academics, the NAACP, and many in the media have to prescribe.

The ascent of Obama is the best hope for focusing the attention of black Americans on the opportunities that await them instead of on the oppression of their ancestors.

"America, while still flawed in its race relations, ... is now the least racist white-majority society in the world; has a better record of legal protection of minorities than any other society, white or black; [and] offers more opportunities to a greater number of black persons than any other society, including all those of Africa." So said Harvard sociologist Orlando Patterson, an African-American of liberal-leaning political views, in 1991.

That's why the number (more than 700,000) of Africans since 1990 who have voted with their feet for America as the land of opportunity, by immigrating, exceeds the number (500,000) who arrived in chains during centuries of slavery. That's why the CEOs of AOL-Time Warner, American Express, and Merrill Lynch are black, as are the current and immediate past secretaries of State.

And that's why a half-black, half-white, all-American achiever named Barack Obama could be the next president. "In no other country on earth is my story even possible," as Obama said at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

What of Obama's limited political experience at the national level? He has more than did another presidential candidate from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln. And he has shown a remarkable capacity to appreciate the legitimate arguments for all sides on every issue, a capacity that transcends his down-the-line liberal voting record. He was elected president of the Harvard Law Review because the conservative minority who tipped the balance thought that the liberal Obama would be fair to their views. They were not disappointed.

Obama has also demonstrated deep understanding of the roots of the racial and political polarization that he seeks to transcend with his consensus-building style. Consider his remarks at a town meeting in Rockford, Ill., last fall. Reported Time magazine's Joe Klein: "He moves through some fairly arcane turf, talking about how political gerrymandering has led to a generation of politicians who come from safe districts where they don't have to consider the other side of the debate, which has made compromise—and therefore legislative progress—more difficult."

Obama did not mention the victimologist leadership of the Congressional Black Caucus. But as he well knows, the racial gerrymandering that guarantees most of these members safe seats in black-dominated, Democratic districts, while ensuring conservative Republican dominance of neighboring districts, is a big part of the polarization problem.

Obama also understands the spirit that must infuse any solution to racial and political polarization. "There's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America," Obama said in his 2004 convention speech. "There's not a black America, and white America, and Latino America, and Asian America; there's the United States of America."

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200702u/nj_taylor_2007-02-02
 
Interesting perspective from some brotha on youtube.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xg1Ca4Q037E"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xg1Ca4Q037E" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
 
Obama: On Black Enough

<font size="5"><center>Obama talks about whether he's
'black enough'</font size></center>


By William Douglas | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Fri, August 10, 2007

LAS VEGAS — With puzzlement and a touch of humor, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama weighed in Friday on a question posed by some in the African-American community about whether he's "black enough" to represent them in the White House.

Speaking to a packed ballroom at the National Association of Black Journalists convention here, Obama said he found the question curious because it appeared to go deeper than his brown skin or his record as a U.S. senator from Illinois or a member of that state's legislature.

"It's not my track record. It's not that I can't give a pretty good speech; from what I've heard I can preach once in a while," he told the audience. "What it really does lay bare, I think, in part: We're still locked into the notion that somehow if you appeal to white folks then there must be something wrong."

Some blacks have questioned his ethnicity because he was raised by a white American mother and an African father, who left the household when Obama was young.

Obama added that his educational background — he attended Harvard Law School — might contribute to some people doubting his racial pedigree.

"There's some of that 'Is he keeping it real because he went to Harvard,' which a lot of you in the audience had to deal with . . . you'd think that we'd be over that by now," he said.

The Illinois senator, who trails Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., in most national presidential polls, is regarded as the first African-American candidate with a legitimate shot at the Democratic presidential nomination.

Early conventional wisdom was that African-American voters — a key Democratic voting bloc — would enthusiastically flock to Obama's campaign, making the path to the nomination more difficult for Clinton, former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., and the rest of the large Democratic presidential field.

That hasn't come to pass. Clinton, armed with former President Bill Clinton's connections, has aggressively pursued the African-American vote and endorsements from key African-American leaders in the political, business and entertainment arenas.

The "blackness" issue dogged Obama early in the race. Some African-American leaders such as the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton — both former presidential candidates — initially told African-American voters that they should cast their ballots based on their political interests, not skin color.

Clinton held a commanding lead over Obama among African-Americans early in the race. An ABC News/Washington poll in January showed Clinton ahead of Obama among African-Americans 60 percent to 20 percent.

But Obama has closed the gap. A Gallup poll released in June showed Clinton leading Obama among African-Americans 43 percent to 42 percent, a virtual dead heat.

Obama arrived in Las Vegas prepared to confront the "blackness" question, which was the subject of one of the convention's panels.

He used elements from the old joke about time and so-called "colored people time" as the reason that he was late for Friday's convention events.

"You guys keep asking if I'm black enough," he said with a straight face. "I thought I'd just stroll in."

McClatchy Newspapers 2007

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/18851.html
 
Re: Obama: On Black Enough

My people. I swear man all of this blacker than thou crap has got to go. This shit is old and self defeating.
 
Re: Obama: On Black Enough

It seems to me that because of Obama's racial make up and his geographical and educational background, there would logically be a cause for innercity Illinoisians to initially question his loyalties.

But since his run for the Illinois House, most would agree that he has supported the issues of his African American constituancy adaquately. In my opinion, those questioning his blackness now are merely columnist, and reporters angeling for a story.
 
Re: Obama: On Black Enough

"You guys keep asking if I'm black enough," he said with a straight face. "I thought I'd just stroll in."

:lol: :lol:
 
Re: Obama: On Black Enough

Obadiah Plainman said:
In my opinion, those questioning his blackness now are merely columnist, and reporters angeling for a story.

i agree with this.

its like michael eric dyson says, he's black, he's got a black wife, he lives in the south side, how much blacker can he be. what we need to worry about is how black are his politics.
 
Re: Obama: On Black Enough

With all of the issues facing americans today, were worried about wether obama is "black enough". And What the fuck is black politics? This man has to be willing to represent the american people not just one portion of it.
 
Re: Obama: On Black Enough

the issue is about some blacks feeling that obama might not be "black enough."

when i say black politics i mean...is obama going to address issues concerning the black community, obviously, if he is president hes going to represent the entire country.

when we talk about him addressing black issues it doesnt mean that we want him to focus ONLY on the black community.
 
Re: Obama: On Black Enough

We shouldn't be suprised by any of this. We have African Americans or, Black if you will, who often make judgments about whether other Blacks are black enough. Some of us even say that others of us are too-white. We seem to forget that one of our greatest assets is our diversity.

Unity can exist with diversity, but it cannot exist with division.

QueEx
 
Re: Ann Coulter Calls Barack Obama "Half Black"

He does have a White mother!!!

28647554.jpg
The 1960 high school yearbook photo of Stanley Ann Dunham, Barack Obama's mother. She attended Mercer Island High School in Washington.

28587177.jpg

A young Barack Obama is shown with his mother, Ann, in Hawaii shortly after his father, Barack Obama Sr., left the two to pursue his studies at Harvard. Barack's mother was given the name Stanley Ann Dunham because of her father's strong desire to have a son. (Photo courtesy of Maya Soetoro-Ng / March 23, 2007)
 
Last edited:
Re: Ann Coulter Calls Barack Obama "Half Black"

yea, its known that Obama mother was white...

I should have been more specific - her comment was that "his first big accomplishment was being born half black" - implying that the main thing he's got going for him in terms of credentials is the race card.

I'd certainly put going to Harvard Law and being elected as the first black President of the Harvard Law Review as an accomplishment.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/01/28/us/28obama.xlarge1.jpg
 
Re: Ann Coulter Calls Barack Obama "Half Black"

This post is run of the mill race bait.

-VG

Typical, a republican makes the statement and then everyone else is wrong for commenting on it, unless it is about Hillary, Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Of course to the republicans, racism is Black folks fault.
 
Back
Top