News Is Racism and the Race Card Still a Relevant Issue in America?

[Char. Limit]

So, I'm looking around at our Tea Party thread, and I notice that there's a lot of talk about racism. Now, this thread has only a passing connection to that one (inspiration, if you must know). I have a few questions I wanted to ask:

1. Do you believe that pro-white racism is still a relevant problem in America?

2. Do you believe that anti-white racism is still a relevant problem in America?

3. Do you believe that politicians and journalists play the Race Card too much in modern times, say, 2008-present?

Just for the record, I would have said yes to all three if asked.

 

[Pengwuino]

Define "relevant".

 

[drankin]

So, I'm looking around at our Tea Party thread, and I notice that there's a lot of talk about racism. Now, this thread has only a passing connection to that one (inspiration, if you must know). I have a few questions I wanted to ask:

1. Do you believe that pro-white racism is still a relevant problem in America?

2. Do you believe that anti-white racism is still a relevant problem in America?

3. Do you believe that politicians and journalists play the Race Card too much in modern times, say, 2008-present?

Just for the record, I would have said yes to all three if asked.

All of the above.

 

[Char. Limit]

Define "relevant".

Yeah, I guess that is a fair question. I mean to ask if such racism is already mostly gone, and we can ignore it, or if it has to be actively fixed.

Also, I don't define racism as "prejudice plus power", as some do. I define it as "belief that a certain race is inherently superior or inherently inferior, or less or more deserving of respect."

 

[rootX]

#1 and #2 will always be problem for some people. As far #1 and #2 are a problem for some population, #3 will always be there.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes to all 3, with the caveat that certain forms of anti-white racism is now incorporated into the law as acceptable practice or even required and along with that it is socially acceptable/required in many cases. So while #2 exists, it is not typically viewed objectively and properly defined in our society. In other words: to many, the word "racism" cannot be applied in the way you have used it in #2. It only is typically applied to white against black.

 

[Jack21222]

While 1 and 2 are still both relevant, they're not nearly as much of a problem as they used to be, and they're on the decline. I'd say "yes" to number 3.

 

[jackmell]

So, I'm looking around at our Tea Party thread, and I notice that there's a lot of talk about racism. Now, this thread has only a passing connection to that one (inspiration, if you must know). I have a few questions I wanted to ask:

1. Do you believe that pro-white racism is still a relevant problem in America?

2. Do you believe that anti-white racism is still a relevant problem in America?

3. Do you believe that politicians and journalists play the Race Card too much in modern times, say, 2008-present?

Just for the record, I would have said yes to all three if asked.

Racism is a significant issue in America although it is often under-emphasized to maintain order, a perfect example of which is the very act of even asking the question which to me has a ridiculously-obvious answer. Anti-white racism still relevant? Are you kidding me? Do you know anything at all about black people? And all the media about their past "struggles" is just fueling the fire. We haven't seen nothing yet. In my opinion, racism will become a dominant, life-changing phenomenon one day in America and it's under-emphasis is only making it easier for one to loose and the other to win. It's a well-known phenomenon of Biology: when two competing populations engage, they conflict until one is exterminated.

 

[russ_watters]

That view assumes that there are two populations and not one...or 12 for that matter.

 

[HallsofIvy]

The other night on the "Colbert Report" on television, Stephen Colbert was "interviewing" a black man who regularly acts as a reporter and "consultant".

Suddenly, the reporter took a card out of his wallet and "swiped" in a card reader that just "happened" to be sitting on the desk before him.

Yes, it was the "race card"! But nothing happened! The reporter then looked more closely at the card and said "Ah, 'not valid during a black presidency'!"

 

[cronxeh]

Racism

I came to this country 10 years ago, not knowing much English, not having any money, not having any prospects. Over the years I have finished high school, went to college. Where others whined that it was too hard - I have worked harder. I have built myself up from nothing, and if that makes me white then so be it.

1. Do you believe that pro-white racism is still a relevant problem in America?

Never experienced any special favors, considering that all my supervisors and managers were black.

2. Do you believe that anti-white racism is still a relevant problem in America?

Yes I think sense of entitlement and jealousy towards the white man is rampant.

3. Do you believe that politicians and journalists play the Race Card too much in modern times, say, 2008-present?

All the time. If it wasn't for race issues we would've eliminated welfare, housing subsidies, and well Ron Paul would've won by now.

 

[Evo]

I will only allow this thread as long as there are no disparaging remarks made against any race, no statements of how a race is perceived to behave, is better or worse than, etc...

Answers that do not strictly respond to the opening post will be deleted.

 

[Jack21222]

That view assumes that there are two populatios and not one...or 12 for that matter.

I'm also not so sure you can say the groups are in competition. Furthermore, the members of these groups may more strongly identify with other groups than race.

I would consider myself in competition with a snake oil salesman even if he was white, while I'd consider a black physics student as on "my team."

 

[Char. Limit]

The other night on the "Colbert Report" on television, Stephen Colbert was "interviewing" a black man who regularly acts as a reporter and "consultant".

Suddenly, the reporter took a card out of his wallet and "swiped" in a card reader that just "happened" to be sitting on the desk before him.

Yes, it was the "race card"! But nothing happened! The reporter then looked more closely at the card and said "Ah, 'not valid during a black presidency'!"

This was actually Jon Stewart. But, yes, the segment was hilarious.

"They always get you with the fine print!"

 

[russ_watters]

Furthermore, the members of these groups may more strongly identify with other groups than race.

That was my point. The question was framed in terms of black/white racial identity, but what about hispanic? Mixed-race? Or, if the Constitution is to be accepted, the lack of racial identification? Part of what creates the issue today is that people still try to identify themselves racially instead of moving past it. The race card is part and parcel of that. Two cases in point:

Tiger Woods is not a politician, but nevertheless, racial politics has followed him around in his golf career. The press has labeled him "black", but he rejects the label, partly because he doesn't want to dabble in racial politics, but also partly because the label is inaccurate. Though he looks somewhat African, he's only about 1/4 African, but half Asian. He calls himself "Cablinasian". So while the media inaccurately plays the race card on his behalf (really, for their own benefit), he does not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Woods#Background_and_family

Brack Obama is called the first black president and he identifies himself with that label, but the reality is that he's half black and half white - so really he's the first substantially mixed-race President. Labeling him "black" is only half correct and so it is equally correct to label him "white". A post-racial politician might have used his mixed-race heritage as a bridge toward discarding of race labels, but Obama has chosen to make "black" his primary identity, reject his white background and capitalize on the race card as a central part of his political identity, while still somehow managing to convince people that he's post-racial. I have no idea how he's been able to pull that off, but so far it has worked out pretty well for him. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/04/nation/la-na-obama-census4-2010apr04

 

[Pengwuino]

Barrack Obama hates black people.

But on a more slightly serious note, I think eventually the term "racist" will lose all of its meaning. When you start calling someone a racist because you deny someone a pay day loan or something similarly trivial, no one is going to care anymore.

I personally think the whole ideas of race and culture and being so anal about both represent a lower level of thinking. Why do people care about what their lineage was? People say that "I am who I am because of my heritage". No. False idiot. You're who you are and where you are in life because of you and, depending on how young they are, their parents. Then maybe their grandparents took some roll in it as well but beyond that, very little someone did 150 years ago has any effect on you, ESPECIALLY in a country like the US with such relative mobility and ways to advance yourself (and conversely, ways to destroy yourself).

 

[lisab]

That was my point. The question was framed in terms of black/white racial identity, but what about hispanic? Mixed-race? Or, if the Constitution is to be accepted, the lack of racial identification? Part of what creates the issue today is that people still try to identify themselves racially instead of moving past it. The race card is part and parcel of that. Two cases in point:

Tiger Woods is not a politician, but nevertheless, racial politics has followed him around in his golf career. The press has labeled him "black", but he rejects the label, partly because he doesn't want to dabble in racial politics, but also partly because the label is inaccurate. Though he looks somewhat African, he's only about 1/4 African, but half Asian. He calls himself "Cablinasian". So while the media inaccurately plays the race card on his behalf (really, for their own benefit), he does not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Woods#Background_and_family

Brack Obama is called the first black president and he identifies himself with that label, but the reality is that he's half black and half white - so really he's the first substantially mixed-race President. Labeling him "black" is only half correct and so it is equally correct to label him "white". A post-racial politician might have used his mixed-race heritage as a bridge toward discarding of race labels, but Obama has chosen to make "black" his primary identity, reject his white background and capitalize on the race card as a central part of his political identity, while still somehow managing to convince people that he's post-racial. I have no idea how he's been able to pull that off, but so far it has worked out pretty well for him. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/04/nation/la-na-obama-census4-2010apr04

My rule of thumb: let the person identify themselves as they wish - it's not a question of what a person is "able to pull off."

When the question of "is he black enough?" came up during the campaign, Obama replied that when he's trying to hail a cab and no one stops for him, he sure feels "black enough."

And that's why we should let the person decide; none of us has lived in their skin, we have no idea what experiences they've had which influence their self-identity.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I will only allow this thread as long as there are no disparaging remarks made against any race, no statements of how a race is perceived to behave, is better or worse than, etc...

Answers that do not strictly respond to the opening post will be deleted.

Why is this thread different than any other? If people make racist comments, they get punished for it. Those are the rules. I'm sure you don't post that warning in every thread. Also, why do we have to strictly respond in a certain way, just because this is a topic about racism?
This is an example of how exaggerated racism has become. It's the worst thing in the world right now, so we can't even freely talk about it.

 

[russ_watters]

My rule of thumb: let the person identify themselves as they wish...

Why? Why allow someone to make false claims for personal benefit? The Constitution requires that everyone be treated equally under the law. On the other hand, some laws requires special treatment based on race. So should a person be allowed to identify with a certain race for personal gain, regardless of actual racial makeup?

...it's not a question of what a person is "able to pull off."

When the question of "is he black enough?" came up during the campaign, Obama replied that when he's trying to hail a cab and no one stops for him, he sure feels "black enough."

And that's why we should let the person decide; none of us has lived in their skin, we have no idea what experiences they've had which influence their self-identity.

How can a law be written in a way that appropriately deals with racism if people are allowed to self-label? Heck, Obama can even switch back and forth as is beneficial to him!

 

[Evo]

Why is this thread different than any other? If people make racist comments, they get punished for it. Those are the rules. I'm sure you don't post that warning in every thread. Also, why do we have to strictly respond in a certain way, just because this is a topic about racism?

For the obvious reasons of

1) Not pulling the thread off topic

2) To keep the thread within the guidelines for attitude, making everyone feel comfortable (yes, that is in the guidelines), avoiding flamewars, etc...

 

[lisab]

Why? Why allow someone to make false claims for personal benefit? The Constitution requires that everyone be treated equally under the law. On the other hand, some laws requires special treatment based on race. So should a person be allowed to identify with a certain race for personal gain, regardless of actual racial makeup? How can a law be written in a way that appropriately deals with racism if people are allowed to self-label? Heck, Obama can even switch back and forth as is beneficial to him!

My personal feeling: law shouldn't define race. I think it started doing so back when slavery was legal. It had to, to determine who was a slave and who wasn't. Also, I don't think law should give racial considerations, but hate crimes are off topic.

As far as what someone (Obama, e.g.) can do with respect to their racial identity: if they make false claims or want to switch depending on the pase of the moon, I really couldn't care less. I can't think of any decision I would make that would change, depending on someone's racial self-identity.

So if you are against people determining their own racial identity, whom do you want to make that determination?

 

[drizzle]

My rule of thumb: let the person identify themselves as they wish...

You mean he can call himself chinese?

Kidding. He only has two options his mom's or his father's side... Obama only has his father's name in his name, right?... I mean that's what's been 'documented' about him.

Other than that, I don't think people ask one who's his/her father/mother, they treat him/her based on his/her "appearance", that is IF there's any racism left, and from what he said, there is.

He 'didn't make that up' he looks black, he treated like one and he chooses to be one.

Speaking of politics... The guy is lucky.

Edit: I didn't mean to be rude at all by any of what I said.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I would say yes to all three. However, I expect that racism against blacks confronts them with larger problems and more often than racism against whites does me.

 

[vela]

Yes to all three questions.

 

[waht]

Yes to all questions.

People are just primitive input-output response machines that are governed by grotesque categorization mechanisms. Racism is basically one form of categorization which is facilitated by the ease of distinguishing skin color from far away.

It suffices you have weight problems, not so good looks, poor financial status, or don't fit someone's religion or political views, and you WILL be discriminated against by many people of same skin color, same countrymen, and even by family members...

 

[rootX]

I would say yes to all three. However, I expect that racism against blacks confronts them with larger problems and more often than racism against whites does me.

Wouldn't that be a different problem than racisim? It seems to be one of the problems that exist in poor population groups arising due to poverty/bad enviornment than color differences. That is blacks from upper economical class will have less or no difficulties (Obama). It could be argued that racism and poverty (economic hardships) go together for all kind of people.

 

[Char. Limit]

Just as a quick response to Russ's post on the first page, which I am unable to quote due to structural limitations...

I actually deliberately avoided a black/white view in the questions, opting instead for pro-white/anti-white. This was because current perception seems to label the race battle as "white people vs. everyone else". So, yes, Hispanics are included, and I actually tried to include everyone.

However, I've noticed that judging on skin color tends to be false. As an anecdotal example, both of my parents are white. Much of my Dad's family is from Scotland and Germany, and my mother's family is Bavarian (Bayerisch) to the core. I look very German myself. My sister, who shares both parents, looks positively Native American (Blackfoot, to be exact). Goes to show that color doesn't always indicate race.

Note: She still puts down "White/Caucasian" on applications.

 

[Danger]

Note: She still puts down "White/Caucasian" on applications.

Weird; we don't have spaces for such a thing on any application that I've ever seen, with the possible exception of the long-form census.

It never ceases to astound me, when watching Yankee television shows, that race still appears as an area of conflict. (Mind you, I watch fiction such as the Law & Orders, CSI's, etc.; US news is of no relevance to me.) Nobody up here thinks twice, for instance, upon seeing a mixed-race couple—or a same-sex couple, for that matter. It's widely known that my ex- is Cree (or, more correctly, Cree-Scottish Metis). A previous girl-friend was French-black from British Guiana. With no exceptions, in both instances we were treated the same as any other couple.
We do have a somewhat peculiar phenomenon that superficially resembles racism but is actually more "groupism". I'm going to single out a couple of examples, but merely for the sake of illustration. It is not intended to demean any of them. The basis for it doesn't have anything to do with any particular race at all, but rather some noticeable group behaviour in which race is an identifying factor. (That didn't come out quite right, but it's the best that I can manage right now.)
When I'm in Calgary, for instance, I get a little tense in the presence of young Vietnamese men. That is based solely upon the fact that the 2 very violent gangs in Calgary are Fresh Off the Boat and Fresh Killers, both of which are composed of Vietnamese kids who immigrated for the specific purpose of criminal activities. Even though I wouldn't expect to be accosted directly by them, there has been a lot of collateral damage due to public gunfights between them. I don't want to get caught up in one.
In my own town, I occasionally cross the street or duck into a store to avoid Natives who appear aimless. (Obviously, given my marital history, I have nothing against Natives.) My problem is that I'm a little too well known to some who consider me an ATM. They can be quite persistent in their begging, and I sometimes just don't feel like dealing with it. Ironically, their incomes are about 8 times what mine is. Conversely, I will cross the street the opposite way in order to visit with some of them.
Both situations have a racial component, but it's coincidental. Neither race is inherently "bad" anymore than Italians are inherently bad because the Mafia exists or Irishmen are bad because of the IRA. Race is merely an identifying factor based upon the actions of a few highly visible members of said race.
In contrast, one of the first girls that I was really nuts about (although she was far too young for me) moved to my area from Detroit because people were trying to kill her father. He was a music professor at Wayne State University; his crime was that he was a black man who had possessed the unmitigated audacity to marry an Irish woman. On our side of the border, they were just another typical (albeit hugely intelligent) family.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes to all 3, with the caveat that certain forms of anti-white racism is now incorporated into the law as acceptable practice or even required and along with that it is socially acceptable/required in many cases.

Such as?

So while #2 exists, it is not typically viewed objectively and properly defined in our society. In other words: to many, the word "racism" cannot be applied in the way you have used it in #2. It only is typically applied to white against black.

Really? Please provide some examples. I think what you said is complete nonsense.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Racism

I came to this country 10 years ago, not knowing much English, not having any money, not having any prospects. Over the years I have finished high school, went to college. Where others whined that it was too hard - I have worked harder. I have built myself up from nothing, and if that makes me white then so be it.

No, this doesn't make you white. It makes you American. Why would you associate success with color? Haven't you seen any successful black people? Should I provide some examples?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That was my point. The question was framed in terms of black/white racial identity, but what about hispanic? Mixed-race? Or, if the Constitution is to be accepted, the lack of racial identification? Part of what creates the issue today is that people still try to identify themselves racially instead of moving past it. The race card is part and parcel of that. Two cases in point:

Tiger Woods is not a politician, but nevertheless, racial politics has followed him around in his golf career. The press has labeled him "black", but he rejects the label, partly because he doesn't want to dabble in racial politics, but also partly because the label is inaccurate. Though he looks somewhat African, he's only about 1/4 African, but half Asian. He calls himself "Cablinasian". So while the media inaccurately plays the race card on his behalf (really, for their own benefit), he does not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Woods#Background_and_family

You said that people try to identify themselves racially, and then provide an example of just the opposite. How does this have anything to do with your point?

Brack Obama is called the first black president and he identifies himself with that label, but the reality is that he's half black and half white - so really he's the first substantially mixed-race President. Labeling him "black" is only half correct and so it is equally correct to label him "white". A post-racial politician might have used his mixed-race heritage as a bridge toward discarding of race labels, but Obama has chosen to make "black" his primary identity, reject his white background and capitalize on the race card as a central part of his political identity, while still somehow managing to convince people that he's post-racial. I have no idea how he's been able to pull that off, but so far it has worked out pretty well for him. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/04/nation/la-na-obama-census4-2010apr04

He identifies himself with being black because he was perceived as being black. And I would like to know how he stands to profit politically by filling out a census card. Beyond that, he has discussed his mixed race many times. Are you suggesting that most people don't know that he's half white?

More specifically, are you suggesting that Democrats don't know that he's half white? Please show some statistics. I see nothing accurate in anything that you've posted.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So, I'm looking around at our Tea Party thread, and I notice that there's a lot of talk about racism. Now, this thread has only a passing connection to that one (inspiration, if you must know). I have a few questions I wanted to ask:

1. Do you believe that pro-white racism is still a relevant problem in America?

2. Do you believe that anti-white racism is still a relevant problem in America?

3. Do you believe that politicians and journalists play the Race Card too much in modern times, say, 2008-present?

Yes, yes, and yes, but things are far better today than ever before. Consider that only two generations ago, it was common to call any black man, "boy". My own grandfather did this but by no means was he a racist [not at heart]. He didn't mean it as an insult. That was just how things were in his day.

We also have the "bitter blacks". Black people who lived in a much harsher America grew bitter and biased. "Never trust whitey" was a common phrase from days gone by. Cleary this isn't generally true anymore, but for the people who lived through those times, the bitterness is hard to escape. As for blacks who are simply hateful racist for no good reason, well, they are just racists. There will always be some of those around in all ethnic groups.

Over the course of my life, we have come lightyears in regards to race. Consider that when I was a kid, mixed marriages were still considered exotic and, by many, disturbing, wrong, sinful, or even an abomination. Today, most people think nothing of it.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Wouldn't that be a different problem than racisim? It seems to be one of the problems that exist in poor population groups arising due to poverty/bad enviornment than color differences. That is blacks from upper economical class will have less or no difficulties (Obama). It could be argued that racism and poverty (economic hardships) go together for all kind of people.

In addition to any problems related to poverty are problems directly related to racism. It was those I was addressing in my post. A recent example that sticks in my memory is the DWB profiling on the NJ Turnpike which was pervasive and had no counterpart in racism against whites. The other was the systemic racial discrimination at Texaco.

 

[ThomasT]

So, I'm looking around at our Tea Party thread, and I notice that there's a lot of talk about racism. Now, this thread has only a passing connection to that one (inspiration, if you must know). I have a few questions I wanted to ask:

1. Do you believe that pro-white racism is still a relevant problem in America?

2. Do you believe that anti-white racism is still a relevant problem in America?

3. Do you believe that politicians and journalists play the Race Card too much in modern times, say, 2008-present?

Yes of course to all three. It's particularly relevant when one has close friends who are of another race.

I'm certainly biased toward my race (I'm white). However, I've come to know and have long-term friendships with some African-Americans, Arabs, Indians, etc. This is a very difficult subject, emotionally.

Of course, politicians and journalists play the 'Race Card' too much. But, it's predictable. This sort of 'perspective' creates conflict and tension. Good stuff for journalists. Not sure about politicians' motives.

Personally, I gravitate toward people who I feel I can trust, no matter where they come from or what they look like.

 

[russ_watters]

My personal feeling: law shouldn't define race. I think it started doing so back when slavery was legal. It had to, to determine who was a slave and who wasn't. Also, I don't think law should give racial considerations, but hate crimes are off topic.

So would you say that Affirmative Action should be abolished?

As far as what someone (Obama, e.g.) can do with respect to their racial identity: if they make false claims or want to switch depending on the pase of the moon, I really couldn't care less. I can't think of any decision I would make that would change, depending on someone's racial self-identity.

Consider the following scenario: a person who is 1/16th black but looks white and a person who is 1/2 black but looks black and declines to give themself a label apply to a college that uses Affirmative Action mandated racial criteria to select students. The 1/2 black person has better test scores, but since the 1/16th black person has identified himself as "black", he is accepted to the college due to that racial identification.

Enter the lawyers.

So if you are against people determining their own racial identity, whom do you want to make that determination?

Government records.

 

[russ_watters]

Just as a quick response to Russ's post on the first page, which I am unable to quote due to structural limitations...

I actually deliberately avoided a black/white view in the questions, opting instead for pro-white/anti-white. This was because current perception seems to label the race battle as "white people vs. everyone else". So, yes, Hispanics are included, and I actually tried to include everyone.

Huh - my perception has been that the battle is typically white vs black and that everyone else is ignored. But ok, fair enough.

However, I've noticed that judging on skin color tends to be false. As an anecdotal example, both of my parents are white. Much of my Dad's family is from Scotland and Germany, and my mother's family is Bavarian (Bayerisch) to the core. I look very German myself. My sister, who shares both parents, looks positively Native American (Blackfoot, to be exact). Goes to show that color doesn't always indicate race.

Note: She still puts down "White/Caucasian" on applications.

Same goes for both the Tiger Woods and Obama examples. It would seem that the physical traits that people associate with "black" are more dominant than those associated with "white".

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Tiger Woods

Those 1/4 African American, 1/4 Thai, 1/4 Chinese, 1/8 Native American and 1/8 Dutch are all alike.

 

[russ_watters]

Such as?

Affirmative Action. We had lots and lots of discussion about the New Haven firefighter case here and I'm pretty sure you participated in it.

Really? Please provide some examples. I think what you said is complete nonsense.

You have got to be kidding. This could not possibly be the first time you've heard it. Here's a google for a few million examples of the discussion:
http://www.google.com/search?source...F_enUS311US311&q=reverse+racism+doesn't+exist

The basic (most reasonable) argument is this: Whites have all the power, therefore blacks don't have the power to be racist:

When a group of people has little or no power over you institutionally, they don’t get to define the terms of your existence, they can’t limit your opportunities, and you needn’t worry much about the use of a slur to describe you and yours, since, in all likelihood, the slur is as far as it’s going to go...

So whereas “cool person” was and is a term used by whites to dehumanize blacks, to imply their inferiority, to “put them in their place” if you will, the same cannot be said of honky: after all, you can’t put white people in their place when they own the place to begin with.

Power is like body armor.

http://www.raceandhistory.com/selfnews/viewnews.cgi?newsid1024893033,80611,.shtml

You said that people try to identify themselves racially, and then provide an example of just the opposite. How does this have anything to do with your point?

Um...both of those guys do identify themselves racially. Perhaps you misread?

He identifies himself with being black because he was perceived as being black.

Is that all the power he has over his own identity - is he really that bound to the perceptions of others? I really thought he had more character than that and I'm shocked you think so little of him. Perhaps we should have elected Tiger Woods President!

And I would like to know how he stands to profit politically by filling out a census card.

That's not what he profited from. He profited from switching back and forth between the identities of "black" and "mixed race" by using "black" to court the vote of "african americans" and "mixed race" to court the vote of whites.

More specifically, are you suggesting that Democrats don't know that he's half white? Please show some statistics.

No. But whenever someone call's him the first black President, they are misrepresenting his race. And surely you don't need a citation to know that that happens, do you?

I see nothing accurate in anything that you've posted.

It appears you understood virtually nothing of what I've posted, which is mind boggling to me as this is all common knowledge stuff.

 

[yungman]

So, I'm looking around at our Tea Party thread, and I notice that there's a lot of talk about racism. Now, this thread has only a passing connection to that one (inspiration, if you must know). I have a few questions I wanted to ask:

1. Do you believe that pro-white racism is still a relevant problem in America?
Not much.
2. Do you believe that anti-white racism is still a relevant problem in America?
Absolute. Right now everything is anti white! Don't get me wrong, I am not white.
3. Do you believe that politicians and journalists play the Race Card too much in modern times, say, 2008-present?
Absolutely. The mainstream news want to see obama succeed and down play all the racial issue of obama.
Just for the record, I would have said yes to all three if asked.

The race issue will be our downfall.

 

[yungman]

So would you say that Affirmative Action should be abolished?
Consider the following scenario: a person who is 1/16th black but looks white and a person who is 1/2 black but looks black and declines to give themself a label apply to a college that uses Affirmative Action mandated racial criteria to select students. The 1/2 black person has better test scores, but since the 1/16th black person has identified himself as "black", he is accepted to the college due to that racial identification.

Enter the lawyers. Government records.

Affirmative action should be abolished. It is not fare for all the other people. Why Chinese has to get better grades than everyone else to get into medical school? Because they study hard and they get punished? Why is it some race can get the job even though he/she is less qualified but with the right color?

Everyone has equal chance, this is land of opportunity, everyone willing to work hard can get ahead.

 

[WhoWee]

Yes to all 3, with the caveat that certain forms of anti-white racism is now incorporated into the law as acceptable practice or even required and along with that it is socially acceptable/required in many cases. So while #2 exists, it is not typically viewed objectively and properly defined in our society. In other words: to many, the word "racism" cannot be applied in the way you have used it in #2. It only is typically applied to white against black.

I agree. However, I get the feeling "Muslim" and "illegal" will soon become the next true battlegrounds. Remember, the "Left" always needs a cause.

 

[yungman]

Progressives use race as a weapon to silence people. If you read back history, it is the republicans that were anti slave right from the beginning when the Republican party first form along with President Lincoln. It was the progressive democrat woodruff Wilson that enacted the segregation. President Eisenhower tried the first civil right bill and was stopped by then senate majority Linden B Johnson. So it was not until 1964 before the real civil right bill was passed. Infect Robert Byrd was associated with KKK and was very anti black.

People now are so afraid of the word racist. The only reason obama got voted in is because he is black. Can you imagine another person with only career was community organizer, two years as senator and voted present more than anything. Over 20 years sitting in a church listening to rev wright preaching hate, GD America, chicken come back to roost. One that started his campaign in the house of bill ayers. Can you imagine the kind of investigation any other person would have with this background. But all we look at is change.

Mainstream media dive into help him. Anyone saw the news from MSNBC on the story of the gun tooting white in the Tea Party rally that turn out the person was black. MSNBC intentionally not showing his face and have two anchors commented on white racism. This is kind of news that the majority of people are watching. And they have to nerve to complain Fox News being biased.


Now the progressives and liberals use the race card, pander to illegals to get vote. Obama is looking into giving amnesty to illegals. Pretty soon, you won’t even recognize this country anymore. How can you call enforcing our border racist? If you are here illegally, you are breaking the law. How can checking the driver’s license racist. I am Chinese, if cops stop me and ask for my ID, I’ll thank them for doing their job.

Now we have to be sensitive to the muslims! How about some sensitivity towards the 9/11 victims’ families.

I am an immigrant and I am a minority, I absolutely against all the racial sensitivities in this country. You want respect, you earn it. Don’t cry racist on cue. Those people give the word minority a bad name.

 

[CRGreathouse]

The only reason obama got voted in is because he is black.

 

[yungman]

And Palin don't have experience to be the vice president candidate! She only was the govenor for Alaska for two years, clean up a lot of the corruption, had about 70% approval rating when she left office, and she serve as the mayor before. These are true executive experience.

Obama was a community organizer related to ACORN. Serve as senator for only two years and more than a year away campaigning. There is not executive experience...and it really show now.

I don't think this is funny. Name any president in recent days that had less than three times the experience than him.

 

[Office_Shredder]

The only reason obama got voted in is because he is black. Can you imagine another person with only career was community organizer, two years as senator and voted present more than anything.

Are you aware that Obama was a lecturer at the University of Chicago for 12 years and invited to take a full-time tenure track?

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media

s received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

He also joined the state senate in 1996, and stayed there until his election to the US senate, so he's been in an office at the state level or higher for 12 years before his presidency. It seems obvious that you don't actually know what Obama has done

 

[yungman]

Are you aware that Obama was a lecturer at the University of Chicago for 12 years and invited to take a full-time tenure track?

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media



He also joined the state senate in 1996, and stayed there until his election to the US senate, so he's been in an office at the state level or higher for 12 years before his presidency. It seems obvious that you don't actually know what Obama has done

That's where the whole thing gone wrong. In education! People taught in college have NO IDEAS what is the real world. It is those acadamics with high education that think they are the elite class, knows better than the rest of the people that cause so much problem.

I know a lot of you guys are high acadamics and professors and I will get a lot of flags. You never can understand the real world until you walk amount them. I had been an EE for 26 years, almost totally self studied because my degree was chemistry. Been a manager of EE for over 12 years. I published papers in Review of Scientific Instruments and own a pattern on a detector of spectrometer type design. That said, I interview enough people coming out of college, It was sad! They have no idea what the real world is. The thing that made it worst is they truly think they know! Professors?? If they never been to the real world, a lot of them are just totally out of touch with the field they are teaching. Their ideas are always very ideal and the world is not ideal!

During the Health Care bill debate days. Frank Luntz did a fucus group of MD and medical students. You should see ALL the real doctors except one were against the bill, but most of the medical students are for the bill, talked about the kindness, helping people, their rights and all. Their goes to show you how out of touch they are. In the real world, it is how you execute rather than the idea, organization and persistance rather than coming out with some LITTLE nifty idea. You grow up when you enter the real world.

Back to the subject, being a state senate or senator IS not executive experience. Runing a state or a city is. When you have to make a decision on who to layoff to fit the budge, what program to cut and face the consequence, when you have to look into the eye of the person and tell him/her you have to let hiim/her go, then that is executive experience.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Why is experience running a state as governor a necessary qualification? John McCain didn't have any executive experience either, what's your point?

LBJ didn't have any executive experience until he was vice president and then succeeded Kennedy to be president, and he did a good enough job to get himself re-elected. Kennedy himself had no executive experience as well.

You're moving the goalposts. First your complaint was that he only served two years in the senate and was a community organizer. Then I pointed out you were ignorant of the facts, so you changed the criterion to being a governor or mayor

 

[turbo]

My nephew is as white as can be, and is a Navy lifer, recently commissioned as a Chief Warrant Officer. His wife is black, as is his adopted step-daughter. The daughter is one of the loveliest young women I have ever seen. Still, attitudes about race in Maine can make them a bit apprehensive about some situations when they visit.

There are not many black people in this state, and many around the Portland and Lewiston areas are recent Somali immigrants, some of whom have not integrated all that well into the local communities. Friction arising from dealings with such communities are more like "growing pains" than deep-seated, long-held resentments, though.

 

[yungman]

Why is experience running a state as governor a necessary qualification? John McCain didn't have any executive experience either, what's your point?

LBJ didn't have any executive experience until he was vice president and then succeeded Kennedy to be president, and he did a good enough job to get himself re-elected. Kennedy himself had no executive experience as well.
How did that end up?
You're moving the goalposts. First your complaint was that he only served two years in the senate and was a community organizer. Then I pointed out you were ignorant of the facts, so you changed the criterion to being a governor or mayor

Read my original post about Palin that the left complain she had no experience to be a VICE presidential candidate! YOu cannot cut both ways.

 

[yungman]

My nephew is as white as can be, and is a Navy lifer, recently commissioned as a Chief Warrant Officer. His wife is black, as is his adopted step-daughter. The daughter is one of the loveliest young women I have ever seen. Still, attitudes about race in Maine can make them a bit apprehensive about some situations when they visit.

There are not many black people in this state, and many around the Portland and Lewiston areas are recent Somali immigrants, some of whom have not integrated all that well into the local communities. Friction arising from dealings with such communities are more like "growing pains" than deep-seated, long-held resentments, though.

Racisism exist. I experience it as I am a Chinese came here in the 70s.

The point is how do you handle it. I know I look different, people don't treat me the same way. I know I have to work harder to proof myself and I did. I worked over 10 years in a company that the owner and the director were very very white. They even slip sometimes on the racial jokes. I got the most promotion from them. I got my manager of EE with them. I demended to become a manager, they said proof what you have, I did, and they gave me the position in 3 months! I was the manager for almost 10 year until I left.

Point is racisism exist, alive and well. But instead of cry foul, give up, sit on the floor and kicking your feet, do something, work harder! YOu earn respect, you don't demand it. I am proud to say, seems like companies are bias towards Chinese now a days because they are usually hard workers. It is up to you to set the example. Keep demanding respect and cry foul, you might be able to pass laws, but you just create racial divid and hate.