The birther movement: racist? total crap?

  • News
  • Thread starter KingNothing
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Movement
In summary: Sarah Palin campaign.In summary, there is a group of people known as the "birther" movement who seek to cast doubt on Barack Obama's citizenship and birth certificate. However, there is no credible evidence to support this theory and it is likely just a political maneuver. Some argue that it is also an appeal to racism. Similar issues have been raised about other politicians, such as John McCain, but it did not receive the same level of hostility and was largely seen as a non-issue.
  • #1
KingNothing
882
4
The "birther" movement: racist? total crap?

There exists a group of people who seek to cast doubt on the legitimacy of Barack Obama's citizenship and his birth certificate. I have searched very diligently and still have not found a single quantum of credibility to this theory.

Sure, any document can, in theory, be faked. People can be manipulated and evidence can be tampered with. The same could be said about the documents of every other president, congressperson, or senator. Certainly when the quality of the allegedly fake document exceeds the limitations of your ability to detect it's falsehood, one must concede.

Though it is undoubtedly just a political maneuver, I cannot help thinking that it is also an appeal to racism. I am rarely one to blow the racism whistle, but come on: we all know that if Barack was white and had a more traditional American name, none of this would have come up.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2


A Certification of Live Birth from Hawaii was made available many years ago, which is a short form birth certificate, and is evidence of birth in any court.

Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
 
  • #3


Insanity said:
A Certification of Live Birth from Hawaii was made available many years ago, which is a short form birth certificate, and is evidence of birth in any court.

Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.

Ah yes, this completely clears up the OP's questions.

I think it's one of those things where people say they believe it, but they really just like the idea that it could be believed by someone, which will help them gain political power/support
 
  • #4


KingNothing said:
I am rarely one to blow the racism whistle, but come on: we all know that if Barack was white and had a more traditional American name, none of this would have come up.
Really? So you don't remember almost the exact same issue being raised about McCain?
MSNBC said:
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and his advisers are doing their best to brush aside questions — raised in the liberal blogosphere — about whether he is qualified under the Constitution to be president. But many legal scholars and government lawyers say it's a serious question with no clear answer.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23415028/ns/nightly_news/

That's MSNBC!, the liberal answer to Fox, forwarding the anti-McCain crackpottery as if it could possibly have had some merit. I suppose they could just be a bunch of black racists, but I'm thinking no...just run-of-the-mill crackpots.
 
  • #5


Yah this is the same ol political BS. People hear stuff like that and think "oh yah that sounds good, i believe it!". Hell, I personally thought the guy was born on a military base. Sounded good, why not, go for it.

There's nothing racist about it, some people just want SOMETHING to pick up on to claim he's illegitimate. Same stuff that happened during Bush's tenure.
 
  • #6


KingNothing said:
There exists a group of people who seek to cast doubt on the legitimacy of Barack Obama's citizenship and his birth certificate. I have searched very diligently and still have not found a single quantum of credibility to this theory.

Sure, any document can, in theory, be faked. People can be manipulated and evidence can be tampered with. The same could be said about the documents of every other president, congressperson, or senator. Certainly when the quality of the allegedly fake document exceeds the limitations of your ability to detect it's falsehood, one must concede.

Though it is undoubtedly just a political maneuver, I cannot help thinking that it is also an appeal to racism. I am rarely one to blow the racism whistle, but come on: we all know that if Barack was white and had a more traditional American name, none of this would have come up.
Yeah, the fact that "birthers" are mostly the same people who have always opposed Democrats of all races is a total coincidence. Must be because he's black. :uhh:

As far as his original long form birth certificate, I always thought he probably had one, but the recent shenanigans of Hawaii officials, including the Governor, changing their stories and left wing pundits trying to say "there is no issue" does have me wondering. Especially the claim that it exists but the President isn't allowed to have a copy for himself, even though I've seen no link to any Hawaii law that says that, instead ofhttp://codes.lp.findlaw.com/histatutes/1/19/338/I/338-18".

I'm not claiming there isn't such a law specific to original birth records, just that I haven't seen it quoted or linked anywhere. Perhaps someone could provide a link?

My guess is that the President has it in his possession, but it's in his best political interest not to release it now. Just a wild guess.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7


russ_watters said:
Really? So you don't remember almost the exact same issue being raised about McCain?

Nope...I don't. I honestly make zero effort to listen to MSNBC or Fox, and I hadn't heard that.
 
  • #8


russ_watters said:
Really? So you don't remember the exact same issue being raised about McCain?

It didn't have the same level of hostility, IMO.

Besides, it's widely accepted that being born on an overseas military base is the same as being born in the US. The thousands of US citizens born on foreign bases have *exactly* the same rights as everyone else - no one would ever think to deny them their rights.

I think the issue around McCain's birth was largely a media-manufactured "story du jour" - they come and go all through election season. This one didn't stick - it was a non-issue from the get-go.
 
  • #9


KingNothing said:
Nope...I don't. I honestly make zero effort to listen to MSNBC or Fox, and I hadn't heard that.
:uhh::uhh::uhh: It's not like MSNBC was the only place you could have seen it. How 'bout USA Today?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-02-28-mccain-natural-born_N.htm

New York Times?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html

Washington Post?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/junkie/archive/junkie070998.htm

CNN?
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-20/opinion/chin.natural.born_1_natural-law-united-states-and-subject-citizenship-clause?_s=PM:OPINION [Broken]

This got quite a bit of airtime during the campaign.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10


lisab said:
It didn't have the same level of hostility, IMO... [snip] I think the issue around McCain's birth was largely a media-manufactured "story du jour" - they come and go all through election season. This one didn't stick - it was a non-issue from the get-go.
Well sure: he didn't win, so it died!

Anyway, I'm not going to start linking crackpot liberal sites to prove hostility (nor do I think it should be necessary). My point is simply that it had quite a bit of traction and I don't think it is reasonable to use the fact that it died to show it was less serious than Obama's.
Besides, it's widely accepted that being born on an overseas military base is the same as being born in the US. The thousands of US citizens born on foreign bases have *exactly* the same rights as everyone else - no one would ever think to deny them their rights.
Not according to MSNBC...

Just to be clear, I'm not saying it had any legitimacy, I'm just saying it happened and it was picked-up and debated in mainstream media. A lot.
 
Last edited:
  • #11


OH it was McCain who was born on a military base? God I'm out of it
 
  • #12


lisab said:
It didn't have the same level of hostility, IMO.
That's because no one objected to discussing the issue. No one was screaming incessantly "there's nothing to see here, no issue at all, the debate is over, etc."

McCain provided all info and documents, and the issue was only whether being born on U.S. territory qualified as being a "natural born" citizen.
The thousands of US citizens born on foreign bases have *exactly* the same rights as everyone else - no one would ever think to deny them their rights.
That's not really relevant. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and any naturalized citizen, has the rights of a citizen, too. But there are qualifications to be eligible for President in addition to citizenship, like being born in the U.S. Not meeting the requirements for the office isn't a violation of rights.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13


russ_watters said:
Really? So you don't remember almost the exact same issue being raised about McCain?

But did 40 percent of Democrats believe that McCain was ineligible to be President?
 
  • #14


Al68 said:
McCain provided all info and documents, and the issue was only whether being born on U.S. territory qualified as being born in the U.S.

I don't even know if he provided any documents. Certainly few people believed he wasn't born on US territory and the issue of whether that qualifies as being a natural born citizen was never settled beyond people deciding it was a boring one and not paying attention to it/bringing it up in the media
 
  • #15


Al68 said:
That's because no one objected to discussing the issue. No one was screaming incessantly "there's nothing to see here, no issue at all, the debate is over, etc."

McCain provided all info and documents, and the issue was only whether being born on U.S. territory qualified as being born in the U.S.

They "screamed incessantly" that there was "nothing to see", "no issue", and "the debate is over"...because there was, in fact, nothing to see, no issue, and the debate was over.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/25/birthers.obama.hawaii/index.html?iref=NS1

Look, there is *no* comparison between the McCain birth "controversy" and the crazy Obama-is-a-Kenyan birthers. Not even close!
 
  • #16


jtbell said:
But did 40 percent of Democrats believe that McCain was ineligible to be President?
1. So you're saying that 40% of Republicans don't believe Obama was eligible? Do you have a reliable source for that? All I can find is links to a single poll that even typically irresponsibly liberal news outlets like Huffington Post couple with a disclaimer about reliability: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/31/new-poll-less-than-half-o_n_248470.html

2. The McCain conspiracy theory didn't have time to fester like Obama's did. Again, he lost.
3. We're getting pretty far from a racist motivation here...
 
  • #17


lisab said:
They "screamed incessantly" that there was "nothing to see", "no issue", and "the debate is over"...because there was, in fact, nothing to see, no issue, and the debate was over.
That's a very odd thing to do, which was my point. Are you aware that one can get a "certification of live birth" even if there was never an original birth certificate?

I think Obama was most likely born in Hawaii, but claiming "the debate is over" despite unresolved issues, unanswered questions, and ever-changing stories by officials is suspicious at best.

Plus, Democrats typically use terms like "crazy" and "crackpot" for other people whenever they are trying to obfuscate the truth themselves. That's what has me wondering about this issue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18


Office_Shredder said:
I don't even know if he provided any documents. Certainly few people believed he wasn't born on US territory and the issue of whether that qualifies as being a natural born citizen was never settled beyond people deciding it was a boring one and not paying attention to it/bringing it up in the media
Yep, that was the conclusion of the Senate hearing on it: it's too boring to pay attention to. :uhh:
 
  • #19


lisab said:
Look, there is *no* comparison between the McCain birth "controversy" and the crazy Obama-is-a-Kenyan birthers. Not even close!
Why not? When you have a major media outlet saying the crackpots are credible, I'd think that would be a pretty big deal. Don't you?
 
  • #20


Al68 said:
That's a very odd thing to do, which was my point. Are you aware that one can get a "certification of live birth" even if there was never an original birth certificate?

I think Obama was most likely born in Hawaii, but claiming "the debate is over" despite unresolved issues, unanswered questions, and ever-changing stories by officials is suspicious at best.

Did you read the link? What exactly are the unresolved issues that you have?
 
  • #21


russ_watters said:
Why not? When you have a major media outlet saying the crackpots are credible, I'd think that would be a pretty big deal. Don't you?

No one outside of the media gave or gives a rat sass that McCain was born in Panama, it is a complete non issue.

Compare that to the passion and numbers of people who follow the birther movement. It was this one issue that catapulted one play-candidate - Donald Trump, no less - from dabbling with the idea to becoming an actual candidate! That is one powerful issue!

Again: there is *no comparison* between the the McCain "controversy" and the birther movement. Not even close!
 
  • #22


Al68 said:
I think Obama was most likely born in Hawaii, but claiming "the debate is over" despite unresolved issues, unanswered questions, and ever-changing stories by officials is suspicious at best.

Everything that can be produced as evidence has been produced. It's not really fair to say that a birth certificate isn't an acceptable proof of birth.

Al68 said:
Plus, Democrats typically use terms like "crazy" and "crackpot" for other people whenever they are trying to obfuscate the truth themselves. That's what has me wondering about this issue.

I think the fact that you see political mud-flinging as a party-specific issue has more to do with you than with the parties themselves.
 
  • #23


Again, like I said, I don't believe that it was only brought up because of race. But I would contend that Obama's race is a factor in why it has gained so much momentum.
 
  • #24


lisab said:
Did you read the link? What exactly are the unresolved issues that you have?
Yes, I read the link. I had already read that exact page before I posted in this thread. It makes a lot of assertions, and shows the same scan of the "certification of live birth" that everyone knows about. That link doesn't resolve anything that wasn't already known.

And I've already mentioned a couple of unresolved issues, but you can find more with a little research on the issue.
 
  • #25


lisab said:
No one outside of the media gave or gives a rat sass that McCain was born in Panama, it is a complete non issue.

Compare that to the passion and numbers of people who follow the birther movement.
That is just so not true. As I said before, I'm not going to start linking crackpots, but you really should have a look. There are tons of websites out there still displaying that story. Google it. Please.
 
  • #26


russ_watters said:
That is just so not true. As I said before, I'm not going to start linking crackpots, but you really should have a look. There are tons of websites out there still displaying that story. Google it. Please.

I think what lisa is saying, is that the percentage of people who bought into that theory was a lot less than the percentage buying into this theory.
 
  • #27


KingNothing said:
Everything that can be produced as evidence has been produced.
So you're saying the original (long form) certificate of birth cannot be produced?
It's not really fair to say that a birth certificate isn't an acceptable proof of birth.
One can argue semantics all day, but the document provided is a different document from the one being referred to as unprovided, despite a similar sounding name. I actually have both for myself, but have never used the term "birth certificate" to refer to the short computer printout you can get them to print up at your local state building. Some do, but most are fully aware that it's not the same thing.

But one thing that some birthers are wrong about is the claim that "you can't get into kindergarten with that thing, much less a drivers license". That's simply false. You don't need an actual birth certificate to get a drivers license, a "certification of live birth" printout is fine for that purpose. The reason is simple: it's easy for them to print out from database info, and not everyone's birth is registered at the time. Not having your birth registered immediately doesn't disqualify one from obtaining a drivers license, or running for President. But it means that no actual birth certificate exists, so a certification of live birth is printed up from data provided to the state later, sometimes many years after birth.
I think the fact that you see political mud-flinging as a party-specific issue has more to do with you than with the parties themselves.
Nope, it's the Democratic Party itself. And I wasn't referring to political mud-flinging.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28


KingNothing said:
I think what lisa is saying, is that the percentage of people who bought into that theory was a lot less than the percentage buying into this theory.
The story wasn't active long enough for anyone to even take a poll on it - it happened during the election. Then he lost, so it died. But that still means you have no basis for your claim that the percentage of people who bought into it was a lot less. All we can really say for sure is that it got substantial media attention.
 
  • #30


Al68 said:
Yep, that was the conclusion of the Senate hearing on it: it's too boring to pay attention to. :uhh:

I know there was a Senate resolution, but I don't know how much effort went into investigating this issue when it was passed. If you have a link you'd like to present that shows there was a serious effort in the Senate to settle the issue I'd appreciate it. Heck, the House passed a resolution which states that Obama was born in Hawaii
 
  • #31


Office_Shredder said:
I know there was a Senate resolution, but I don't know how much effort went into investigating this issue when it was passed. If you have a link you'd like to present that shows there was a serious effort in the Senate to settle the issue I'd appreciate it.
There wasn't much effort to settle it because it didn't need much effort. Being born on U.S. territory is "natural born", even if not in one of the states. There was no other issue in dispute.
Heck, the House passed a resolution which states that Obama was born in Hawaii
Whether Obama was born in Hawaii is a factual, not a legal, issue. The McCain issue was a legal, not a factual, issue. The facts were not in dispute, obviously negating the need for an investigation of facts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32


russ_watters said:
But that still means you have no basis for your claim that the percentage of people who bought into it was a lot less. All we can really say for sure is that it got substantial media attention.

You know, it's pretty frustrating when I can't try to clarify what another member is saying without being "called out". I didn't make any such claim, and I don't appreciate the accusation that I did.
 
  • #33


Al68 said:
There wasn't much effort to settle it because it didn't need much effort. Being born on U.S. territory is "natural born", even if not in one of the states. There was no other issue in dispute.Whether Obama was born in Hawaii is a factual, not a legal, issue. The McCain issue was a legal, not a factual, issue. The facts were not in dispute, obviously negating the need for an investigation of facts.

A legal question on what the definition of natural born is requires researching and discussing what the definition of the words are. There are people who say that even if Obama was born in Kenya, he's a natural born citizen by being born to an American citizen. It seems to me that the McCain question is much harder to settle than the Obama one in principle
 
  • #34


I personally believe that both instances were just pathetic political maneuvers and nothing more. I think John McCain and Barack Obama both had every right to become president.

The point of this thread was to discuss whether or not racism plays some part in this. I believe it does. It is a lot easier to accuse a part-black man with a foreign-sounding name of such a thing than a white-skinned man with a more American name, and to have the accusation gain momentum.
 
  • #35


russ_watters said:
That's MSNBC!, the liberal answer to Fox, forwarding the anti-McCain crackpottery as if it could possibly have had some merit. I suppose they could just be a bunch of black racists, but I'm thinking no...just run-of-the-mill crackpots.

There is a slight difference- McCain really was born outside the US in the canal zone, which really did lead some legal scholars to question his eligibility. In a very wise move, the senate did pass a resolution affirming his natural born citizenship. No conspiracy theory, a minor issue about definition of natural-born-citizen, resolved by the senate almost instantly.

Whereas Obama was born in Hawaii. Anyone with a functioning brain knows Obama was born in Hawaii. The conspiracy (like all conspiracy theories) isn't about facts, it flies in the face of the facts.
 
<h2>1. Is the birther movement racist?</h2><p>Yes, the birther movement is widely considered to be racist. It was based on the false claim that former President Barack Obama was not born in the United States and therefore was not a legitimate president. This claim was fueled by racism and xenophobia towards Obama, who is a person of color with a multicultural background.</p><h2>2. Is there any evidence to support the birther movement?</h2><p>No, there is no credible evidence to support the birther movement. Obama's birth certificate and other official documents have been repeatedly verified and confirmed by government officials. The claims made by the birther movement have been thoroughly debunked by fact-checkers and experts.</p><h2>3. Why do some people still believe in the birther movement?</h2><p>Some people may still believe in the birther movement due to confirmation bias and a desire to believe in conspiracy theories. Additionally, racism and political motivations may also play a role in perpetuating this false narrative.</p><h2>4. Is the birther movement a legitimate political issue?</h2><p>No, the birther movement is not a legitimate political issue. It has been widely discredited and is not based on any factual evidence. It is often used as a means to attack and discredit political opponents, rather than being a legitimate topic for debate.</p><h2>5. What impact did the birther movement have on American politics?</h2><p>The birther movement had a negative impact on American politics by perpetuating racism and xenophobia, and by distracting from more important political issues. It also contributed to the polarization and division within the country, making it more difficult to have productive and respectful political discourse.</p>

1. Is the birther movement racist?

Yes, the birther movement is widely considered to be racist. It was based on the false claim that former President Barack Obama was not born in the United States and therefore was not a legitimate president. This claim was fueled by racism and xenophobia towards Obama, who is a person of color with a multicultural background.

2. Is there any evidence to support the birther movement?

No, there is no credible evidence to support the birther movement. Obama's birth certificate and other official documents have been repeatedly verified and confirmed by government officials. The claims made by the birther movement have been thoroughly debunked by fact-checkers and experts.

3. Why do some people still believe in the birther movement?

Some people may still believe in the birther movement due to confirmation bias and a desire to believe in conspiracy theories. Additionally, racism and political motivations may also play a role in perpetuating this false narrative.

4. Is the birther movement a legitimate political issue?

No, the birther movement is not a legitimate political issue. It has been widely discredited and is not based on any factual evidence. It is often used as a means to attack and discredit political opponents, rather than being a legitimate topic for debate.

5. What impact did the birther movement have on American politics?

The birther movement had a negative impact on American politics by perpetuating racism and xenophobia, and by distracting from more important political issues. It also contributed to the polarization and division within the country, making it more difficult to have productive and respectful political discourse.

Back
Top