CNN's Bennett: "Barack Hussein Obama ... has taught the black community you don't have to act like Jesse Jackson ... like Al Sharpton"
Following CNN's projection that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) would win the Iowa Democratic caucus, CNN anchor Anderson Cooper asked CNN contributor and conservative radio talk show host Bill Bennett: "[D]oes this change the game a lot?" As Alex Koppelman noted at Salon.com's War Room blog, Bennett replied, "[A] remarkable breakthrough, this year, as the other group said -- 97 percent, in fact, Iowa, rural, white farming state. Barack Hussein Obama, a black man, wins this for the Democrats." Bennett added: "[Obama] never brings race into it. He never plays the race card. Talk about the black community -- he has taught the black community you don't have to act like Jesse Jackson; you don't have to act like Al Sharpton. You can talk about the issues."
During the September 28, 2005, edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, as Media Matters for America documented at the time, Bennett sparked a widespread controversy when he told a caller:
BENNETT: I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.
From the 9 p.m. ET hour of CNN's January 3 coverage of the Iowa caucuses:
COOPER: Let's go check in with our political contributors. Bill Bennett, does this change the game a lot?
BENNETT: Well, I think it's -- and again, a wonder of America here, a remarkable breakthrough, this year, as the other group said -- 97 percent, in fact, Iowa, rural, white farming state. Barack Hussein Obama, a black man, wins this for the Democrats.
I have been watching him. I watched him on Meet the Press. I watched him on your show, watched him on all the CNN shows -- he never brings race into it. He never plays the race card. Talk about the black community -- he has taught the black community you don't have to act like Jesse Jackson; you don't have to act like Al Sharpton. You can talk about the issues. Great dignity. And this is a breakthrough, and good for the people of Iowa.
And, what does this -- and, you know, what does this mean? That, you know, it matters not to Hillary Clinton to lose this. She lost to Barack Obama in this state. It's a remarkable thing. It's a change in American politics. Whether he goes on and wins other states, this is something very good that's happened.
COOPER: [Democratic strategist] Donna [Brazile], we're going to pick up with you in a moment, but [host] Wolf [Blitzer] you have an interview with [CNN congressional correspondent] Dana Bash and [Huckabee for President national campaign chairman] Ed Rollins.
I don't think he has "taught" the black community anything, he has just acted differently by not bringing race, thankfully, into his campaign.
Jackson and Sharpton are as irrelevant to an Obama campaign as Elizabeth Dole is to a Hillary campaign.
I think we can look forward to these sort of comments for as long as Obama's in the race. "clean", "well-spoken", "articulate", and as our friend Finarfin said "well-dressed and successful".
We can also expect a complete lack of understanding on the part of those making these comments that it isn't necessarily "positive" or a "compliment" to point out that certain people outside of your group (ethnic,race,sex,religion) are behaving themselves in a way that doesn't make you uncomfortable.
I'll bet Obama never says Mother-F-er when ordering iced tea. That's how I like my negroes ! and well-dressed!
I don't know, I bet it's slipped out on occasion. After all, it's apparently pretty prevalent to hear that phrase in black-owned restaurants.
Prevalent? And where did you pick up that bit of fiction? I'm sure I've frequented more Black owned anything than you have and what you just said is dumb and untrue. Thankfully you’re part of a past that is quickly coming to an end. RIP
Lynn, I think it was a joke.
My bad, I pounced too quickly. I've been gone along time and I don't know this poster
Yeah Lynn, joking.
My apologies D!
No biggie...it is quite hard to convey sarcasm in print. perhaps I should have included the J2? ;)
Personally, I prefer the adaption of HTML tagging to convey the sentiment that is hidden by the words:
<sarcasm>
<irony>
<dubiety>
<incredulity>
Just don't forget to close the tag, else everyone who follows your post will be tainted by the open tag (you've probably seen unclosed BOLD, or italics run on for the rest of the page here, a few times. Certainly ugly, but nothing compared to an unclosed <snark>, or <sarcasm>.)
So you are saying that everything about a particular group is acceptable as long as the behavior fits in with the group norm? Personally, being well dressed is a sign of grooming and class, I will not vote for some bum who is "expressing himself".
Personally, being well dressed is a sign of grooming and class, I will not vote for some bum who is "expressing himself".
Any bum can be well groomed and well dressed to fit a mold. I'd vote for some old farmer in overalls if he/she had good ideas and knew what they was talking about. A little dirt on their face and an old pick up truck wouldn't hurt either - oh forget the old pick up, Fred Thompson already went there.
Interesting. I have a question. What would be wrong with Obama bringing race into his campaign? We are a country composed of interest groups, and if a certain group of people have a certain interest, what would be wrong with addressing their issues? Sorta like the conservatives do with the Christian right or liberals do with abortion rights. Or how about conservatives and tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy? Why are we supposed to change all the rules in regards to the black community? And by issues I mean racism, I mean black on black crime and literacy. I mean the whole spectrum. Why should he leave race out of his campaign Tommy?
I have no problem if Obama addresses any issues that are important to people of all races, that was not what I meant.
What did you mean? You said "he has not brought race, thankfully, into his campaign." So why are we thankful that Obama is leaving out, what to me, should be a major talking point?
By using his race as a reason to vote for him, he has not done that, thankfully - he is speaking from his heart, with inspiration and truthfulness and trying to be inclusive and bring people together, rather than playing the race card.
If you can't understand what I mean, I tried.
Gotcha. I moreless am speaking of addressing problems in predominantly black areas. You are speaking of not using his race to say vote for me because I am black. Sorta like peole saying Hillary shouldn't use her gender to get people to vote for her. Now I'm just playing devil's advocate and you're a pretty intelligent guy, but hasn't just about every president (all white) said "I am the right man for the job." Haven't they benefited from their race and religion for scores in a country whos constitution gives right to every citizen to run for public office? Just wondering.
You have a point, but I think the "right man" for the job is more of a euphamism than anything else.
To me, Obama's race is 100% irrelevant just as Huckabees, or Edwards, of Clinton's gender is, as well. I don't vote for or against anyone based on race or gender.
As I said, I hope Obama, and all the candidates address the problems we all face, in every neighborhood and culture in our country.
This link states it better than you ever could:
[link to wonkette.com]
I have no idea what your point is, but never mind.......I really don't care.
Don't worry Bill Bennett wouldn't understand it either.
"Wonkette"...yes I must put that blog on my Favorites list.
She used the word "negro" and everything!
What's wrong with using the term "negro"? I [negro] use it all the [negro] time. It best describes an anthropological classification.
Yeah, Uncle Cracker, we know all too well.
I didn't get that either but that was a great picture of Johnny NYC at the top right of that page.
I wonder if Bennett will ever teach the white community you don't have to spend your entire life in front of a slot machine to be relevant in today's society.
"He who has not been to Vegas may throw the first die." Numbers:7,11
that's funny, cuz Numbers 7:11 is actually "And the LORD said unto Moses, They shall offer their offering, each prince on his day, for the dedicating of the altar."The altar of money.
What do Bob Kerrey and Bennett have in common? they both use the "Hussein" game.
The Hussein Game?
you mean...
Obama Bama bo Bama
Banana Fana Fo Fama
Me My Mo mama
Obama ?
I like it - can you copyright that?
I think the last line was
My my yo momma, obama!
Thanks for the laugh!
Yeah I'm still waiting for the world wide headlines celebrating "muslim" Hussein" Obama's victory in Iowa as predicted by Chris Matthews.
Cm seemed like he was drunk last night, blathering on about Obama's Kenyan father and all. This guy is an embarrassment. I sensed KO feeling uncomfortable sitting there beside this braying arse.
That is funny JJ, I thought he was drunk too. Maybe he was just sad because of the huge Democratic turnout, and the sign of things to come.
At first the Hussein name was a bit of a problem but now by using it regularly we can take the charge off it and not pretend it doesn't exist. That's progress of a sort.
I'm so happy that Media Matters caught this because when I was watching CNN last night, and Bennett said such a stupid statement, I almost threw my remote control at my tv set. When will the media realize that Sharpton and Jackson are NOT our leaders! This is why I have problems with such terms as "the black community" because it gives one an image of some tribal community when there's no such thing as a single, monotonous black community. Black people are just as diverse with different ideas and beliefs as white people.
Furthermore, anyone who has read progressive political scenticist Adolph Reed, Jr. -- who is a harsh critic of Jackson and Sharpton -- will realise that neither of their campaigns were designed to win the presidency in the first place; their campigns were designed for the media to self-appoint them leaders/spokesmen for the "black community" so our interests can be represented as "fringe," "radical," "confrontational," "out-of-touch" within mainstream America. Jackson and Sharpton knew going in that they would never be elected as president, but they did so mostly to advance their own personal agenda in becoming media personalities.
To quote Adolph Reed, Jr., "This idea of community is a mystification, however, and an anti-democratic one at that. All social units are comprised of discrete individuals whose perspectives and interests and alliances differ, and every unit's members are bound together through a combination of negotiation and coercion. The less attention is paid to cultivating and protecting the sphere of negotiation, the more balance shifts to coercion. The rhetoric of community is impatient with the former and its myth of authenticity rationalizes the latter.
[...] The community idea's undemocratic, antiparticipatory underside is less visible in black politics, party because black political activity and rhetoric are articulated most forcefully against oppressive outside forces. The effect is to shift everyone's focus away from the internal dynamics that shape black political culture. But more insidious tendencies also blind observers to the black communitarian reflex's ugly foundation. Because whites by and large don’t see black Americans as complex population of differentiated individuals, the organic community imagery seems reasonable and natural to them. I cringe when I recollect the many occasions I've heard white activists rhapsodize about "the black community" coming in, with its particular clarity and moral force, to proffer its matter-of-fact, cut-to-the-chase wisdom, like the Ninth Cavalry of the Army of Righteousness."
The next time I hear Republicans tell me that Jackson and Sharpton are "my leaders," I'll remind them that Pat Robertson and James Dobson are THEIR leaders!
The only problem is - you would be right - I mean correct - in your statement, and they might appreciate that recognition.
You're right. But I do think there are many libertarian Republicans that have disdain for the Christian right but tolerate them anyway due to elections. I've read where many libertarians aren’t quite too happy of Mike Hucakbee winning the Iowa Caucus.
Preston,
I'm glad to hear you say that Sharpton and Jackson are not your leaders. However they have grabbed the media and political spotlight for the past 20 - 30 years.
To a non-black observer, those two sure seem to always be in front of the cameras, at the front of every march, on every Democratic podium since Dr. Kings assassination. I've often wondered why these self-promoters seemed always to be the 'face' of blacks when it came to media. I don't think I ever heard, outside of conservative black columnists and occasional minister on Fox, anyone in the black community denounce these two. Thankfully, I think their time is pretty much over.
The way I interpret it, Bennett siding with you.
In a way he is, but his presumptions are completely baseless and rude.
More to the point, the cameras have been pointed at them - yet another reason to assail our Corporate Media. Those Media decisions have created or at least dictated quite a lot of the division and racism in our times, purely by their effort to exploit the loudest, most extreme, and downplay the far more moderate majorities of both/all racial/ethnic/gender/sexual-preference pools.
ConleyT,
Amen brother!
Hey AnotherAmerican,
No need to pat me on the back because I'm a fierce critic of Sharpton and Jackson. While I do believe both are inept civil rights leaders, and their goal is to solely fill their pockets and make backroom deals to give themselves and their organizations fame and money, I do think they address many issues that concerns black people. However, for the most part, Sharpton and Jackson’s goal is to become the go-to men of all things race, and sure enough, our media treats them as if both men are the embodiment of the entire “black community.” Therefore, while I consider both to be inept and egomaniacs who offer no strategies or platforms to battle the things that advocate for, the issues they speak of do exist for many black folks. So, no, Bennett and I do not come to agreement on this.
I'm all for policies that help poor, disadvantages people across America, from the ghettos to the trailer parks. However, it seems Bennett is suggesting that since Obama doesn’t take such proactive views addressing black interests – i.e., social stratification, educational equality, unemployment, crime, loan discrimination, job displacement, etc. -- this is a sign of good things. To Bennett, it appears that pulling the race card is the equivalent of speaking of and advocating for policies to help many urban areas. To me, pulling the race card means because of some personal failure, one automatically blame one’s failure because of racism, not because of some incapability on one’s part. Sure, there are some black folks who fit that stereotype, however, that doesn't tell the whole story. For the most part the narrative is, “Racism isn’t holding blacks back; it’s their laziness and culture.” Thus, Sharpton and Jackson never attempt to galvanize people to vote for them because they’re black; they mostly advocated people to vote for them so they can help many poor communities by passing certain policies. (Even though both knew that they didn’t have a snowball chance in hell to become president. Hence, the reason they ran so the media and public at large can annoit them the LEADERS of the “black community.”) Sure, their platform was designed to assist blacks, but they were addressing many issues that face blacks on a daily basis, and pretending to be above such issues, avoiding them because one is afraid that when addressing them one may alienate a huge voting block, doesn’t solve a damn thing, in my opinion.
Sharpton and Jackson are self-appointed leaders not because of their personal greed and agenda; no, they're made leaders so black interests can be depicted as "too radical" and "too unegalitarian" for the rest of America to hop on board and support. The media helps in this when they run to both whenever there's a race story that explodes. So while we can chastise both for being egomaniacs, both could not be who they are today without the assistance of those whose goal is to ostracize and disparage black politics as a whole.
Preston,
You may not think you and BB are on the same page, but it looks to me like you and BB have expressed basically the same sentiment.
Just who are these people whom you say, " both could not be who they are today without the assistance of those whose goal is to ostracize and disparage black politics as a whole."
Frankly, I do not see any evidence, as you have stated, that there is any conspiracy to ostracize and disparage black politics as a whole.
Rather, I see a bunch of opportunists in the left wing media and on the political scene who act as useful idiots (to borrow a phrase), by these race hustlers. They all are afraid to expose these charlatans because doing so does not further their liberal agenda. So instead the left wing media and politicians prop up Jackson and Sharpton, giving them legitimacy, in order to further their own careers and push their own agenda.
AA,
The only sentiment that I share with Bennett is that we’re tired of the overexposure of Jackson and Sharpton. That’s where it ends. Bennett is tired of Jackson and Sharpton because he believes that what they advocate for and preach of is too divisive and their message frightens white folks; their message is too “Black Nationalistic.” (Hell, even a neoliberal centrist like Obama is smeared by Hannity of supporting a black separatist church!) I’m tired of the overexposure of the two because I find both to be inept as civil rights leaders and their media personas are used as a baroque representation of black politics. Not only that but they’re made to be OUR leaders and spokemen! The go-to men for America to read and learn the minds and hearts of those dark savages! I find that to be extremely insulting.
Who are those people I say that ostracize and disparage black politics as a whole? I think I said in my earlier post that those who often call Sharpton, Jackson – and back in the 90s Farrakhan – to speak on issues of race in the media. That could be corporate executives and producers who aren’t looking to enlighten folks on such issues, but to sensationalize race-based stories for ratings. There are many intelligent black progressives who offer more brilliant analysis on social and political issues that face black Americans than Sharpton and Jackson; however, NBC, CNN, FOX, CBS, ABC, etc., seem to only summon only Sharpton and Jackson because they know that both have been so lampooned and discredited that their appearances are cheep tactics to grab ratings. Furthermore, using them as the sole embodiment of black politics makes our interests seem extreme and cartoonish – on the fringe of mainstream America. Hannity and O’Reilly enjoy bringing Sharpton and Jackson on because it’s their way to symbolically say to America: “you see how fringe and divisive black liberals and their aspirations are? Sharpton and Jackson represent their interests and ideals!”
And I don’t buy this whole notion that the “left wing media” and politicians are too afraid to expose Sharpton and Jackson. Are you saying that no one on the left has spoken out against the two and criticize them? You know that’s not true, AnotherAmerican, so please don’t go there. Jackson and Sharpton do not hold that much power as the Right wants America to believe. (Jackson and Sharpton have almost become the boogiemen on the Right comparable to George Soros.) Sure, Democratic presidential candidates pander to them because they too are under the assumption that Jackson and Sharpton are the go-to men to reach the minds and hearts of black America. But this is not the fault of every black citizen in this country if people by into the propaganda that there’s no such thing as individuality in our communities. There are some black people who support and admire Sharpton and Jackson; there are others like me that are tired of them. Don’t hate them or anything, just tired of them. So regardless of how many black people speak out against Sharpton and Jackson – right or left – it will not change a damn thing when the media always call these two to speak on issues of race as our spokesmen.
AA:
THE MEDIA has selected Sharpton and Jackson as "spokespersons" for (a) black point of view, and are the "go to" interviews for any race-related issue.
It is THE MEDIA, not the black community particularly, who have given these men national status as "black leaders".
However, that same MEDIA has put forward the likes of Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, and Bernard Goldberg as "REPRESENTATIVES" of the rightwing/conservative mindset, so I can't complain too loudly.
I will accept Sharpton/Jackson as "liberal leaders", as long as the same calculus defines rightwing thinking by Ann Coulter as a "leader" who typifies rightwingers.
Fair is fair.
Al & Jesse are NOT our LEADERS, but Al has been on the front lines for civil rights throughout America. You dont have to agree with EVERYTHING that someone does to like that person, or even appreciate his hard work.
Just remember that Sharpton does not get to edit his remarks, or any of his appearances. I have seen Fox as well as CNN and the rest of them, (But mainly Fox) actually put words in his mouth (see debate with Hannity). Then blow these words waayyy out of proportion.
The problem is, we are not 1 person. No more than white people all being down with Michael Savage or B. O'Reily.
It is deplorable, the representation the media gives the "black community". It is also interesting how African Americans are viewed as a singular collective group rather than a vast variety of individuals. It seems to be an indirect attack on the American negro population by the media, And it's effects are subconscious yet enormous. The negro population should collectively condemn these radical reverends.
Cracker crumbs anyone?
LOL. There is a serious racial divide that the white media by and large refuses to acknowledge. It's TWO THOUSAND AND FREAKIN EIGHT, and in a country that boast 'send us your poor, your tired, your hungry, your blah, blah freakin blah, the religion and race of a candidate is all these racist media bobbleheads can focus on. The man is not Muslim. If he were, so freakin what! How is it that these racist say they love America, when they obviously don't agree with the constitution.
I am black. Jesse hasn't taught me a damn thing. Al Sharpton hasn't taught me a damn thing. If you are white, please, please please stop saying this person or that person is representative for the black conscience. I don't personally think Bush represents all of white America's values. I don't think Clinton represented all of white America's interest. So why is it every freakin time a positive black man comes along he has to be dubbed the black savior. We are soooo far behind from a tolerance stand point and yet Americans beat their chest and boast as if we are living in some kind of perfect utopia.
Sorry for the rant.
I for one think that was a great "rant", and I agree with you completely. This need to assign leaders to Blacks is condescending and it drives me crazy. I remember when Bill O'rielly told JC Watts he ought to go and try to be the leader of the Blacks because we needed one.
.
Orally is a jerk. I don't care how many times they say his ratings are better than Obees I'm done with these racist jerks. I'm sick and tired of listening to their rhetoric. I've given the media conservatives a chance. I'm no longer interested in their biased, slandering condescending attitude towards my vote. The Coulters, the Savages, the Hannity's - all of 'em. What they say to get ratings, affects real people like myself. They speak of Christian values and no nothing of Christ's love.
Sorry for the second rant. I promised myself I wouldn't let them raise my blood pressure in '08.
August, I feel you. It's like many can't come to grips with individuality among black folks. But this is only going to get worse as Obama continues to win more caucuses. I remember Ed Rollins last year said the great thing about Obama is that he can now do away with the Sharptons and Jacksons of the world. Meaning: "we don't have to hear blacks at high places complain about racism because Obama is above such political, divisive talk."
This is one of MANY reasons why I cannot support Obama (mostly my dissatisfaction of Obama has to do with his platform and policies, but I digress). Many feel by electing him that all problems of race will finally evaporate because America finally had the gall to elect a black man. It will be a sign that America has moved beyond racism. Sorry, but racism isn't just personal beliefs that a few individuals feel towards minorities, its systemic, something that effects me and others personally on many levels, and tokenism will never relieve the deep systemic racism in this country, no matter how Tucker Carlson, Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough, etc., proclaim that by electing a black man we've resolved the "color line." Why is it that I don't hear these arguments that America has moved beyond gender, and that sexism is no longer an issue, if Hillary Clinton becomes president? To even suggest that such a deep stain will finally be removed because a woman or minority is elected into high office is quite silly and myopic, to say the least.
Racism is far from gone Pres. Did you read about the man who served 20 freakin years for a false rape charge. He went in when he was 20. He's in his 40's now. DNA testing finally proved he was innocent. He not only was black, the alleged victim was a white woman. 10 guesses what state this was in. Here's a hint it's the state with the most death penalties. And you have people who will look at you like you are insane when you bring up racism. 20 years. He said they continually tried to get him to admit to it, but he refused b/c he knew he was innocent.
Here's something quite recent - quite amazing how intolerant some people are. And it's texas, so you can pretty much guess who they vote for...
That's really sad...I can't believe people still do this. Definite hate-crime.
Wait a few hours and read some of the reader comments that get attached to the story. I like Raw Story as a source of information, but recently their comments sections have been attracting some of the most vile racists I've come across.
Actually, I think it's only 2 or 3 individuals in total, but it's pretty ugly.
right now the only comment is "Texas sucks a$$." After 7 years of this Texas Governor turned President, I think I'd have to agree.
Snoopy, that happened in Arlington Texas just 25 minutes down the road from me. That makes me cry.
Snoop,
Can you show me where it is written the political party of the attacker? Are there no Democrats in Texas? If you do not know for certain if this person is a Republican, you owe everyone an apology.
C'mon. You can do better than libel members of a political party based on something as isolated as this unfortunate incident.
Lets debate real issues. There is enough real stuff to talk about than make up accusations that Republicans as a party are racist.
Not really. Anyone living in texas can tell you arlington is pretty solid republican. And racists don't vote in droves for the Democratic candidates. So sorry AA, you may not like my depiction, but it is what it is so no apology needed.
I think Texans voted 62% for GWB. So what he is saying probably isn't that far off the mark. Further consider the racist rantings of many rightwing radiocons and TeeVee pundits, and you could make a probable assumption that this person is a RWinger. I see Rwingers as being much more racist and sexist than liberals. I think the discourse that's been coming out of the RW media is indicative of that. Liberals wouldn't brook discourse like that and it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise. I don 't blame you for not wanting to be painted with that broad brush, but it is the perception that RW folks tolerate this type of discourse or it wouldn't get the ratings, etc..It certainly isn't people like me who are contributing to their ratings.
Thanks JJ! Woof!
Julia,
You and snoop are as guilty of bigotry as any racist.
Only your bigotry is aimed at Republicans.
Think about it.
Oh, puhhleeese. Poor baby get your feelings hurt? When Republicans get a clue and quit brooking all the negative and evil coming from their party, I might come around. But my momma is a Republican so I don't hate ALL Republicans. And I likes me some Jeter2 as well and not only because he's handsome!
Don't feel bad, JuliaJayne, I'm a bigot and a troll according to Barney.Except my bigotry, if I remember right, was due to my seething hatred of the 95% of people who are religious.Or something like that.
Hbl, I didn't know you were a bigot and a troll. But then you do seem like a very accomplished guy. ;-0) Keep up the hard work in 2008!
Julia,
I am not crying at all. Lets talk issues rather than defend false generalizations about Republicans being racists.
Sorry, AA. You can run but you can't hide. There is no generalization. Most racists are Republican/right leaning. You can't make it untrue by claiming otherwise and castigating us for generalizations. I've got an idea. Take this up with your vaunted radiocons and teevee pundits that spew racist hate weekly. You guys love Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh et al, you are part of the problem and don't David Brooks me with some naive sunshine up the behind. I'm using an example, I don't know if you like these guys or not so I'm not speaking specifically to you but to RWs as a whole.
Discussing RW's as a whole is sorta like discussing the rectum as a hole.
No, it's aimed at right wingers. Phony christians. Racists, homophobes and bigots. I've known plenty of good republicans, my dad voted until he decided they never really did anything for small business except make promises. Today's republican is led largely by right wing bigots like Tancredo, Vitter and Craig. You don't like that? Tough. I'm just surprised you would say that about me considering all the discussion we've had about the racial bigotry my wife deals with every time we venture north.
I thought you were a little more open minded and central leaning, I guess I was wrong.
Snoop,
I am not the one who is making blanket racist accusations. You are. You are making claims you cannot support.
Unless you know for a fact that the attacker was a Republican, you are simply libeling millions of people as racists only because you disagree with them politically.
Even if the attacker was Republican, it doesn't prove anything except show your prejudice. I'm only pointing trying to point it out. You don't need to resort to these type of low insults.
Lets get off the 'all Republicans are racists" bandwagon. It is a an unsupportable canard.
I didn't see where Snoop said "all Republicans are racists." Could you show that to me?
And while it certainly is not true that all Republicans are racists, it may be true that most racists are Republicans.
Read a few statements from well known Republicans:
"But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down."--Bill Bennett
“… Mayor Naeger, yeah, Ray Nagin wants…” --Rush Limbaugh
"I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well,'' --Rush Limbaugh
"I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city [Washington, DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." --Ron Paul
"Take that bone out of your nose"--Rush Limbaugh responding to an African American caller
“Post-9/11 our philosophy should be: Raghead talks tough? Raghead faces consequences.” --Ann Coulter
"I want to say this about my state: when Strom Thurmond ran for President, we voted for him, we're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."--Trent Lott speaking of Strom Thurmond's presidential run on a segregation platform.
"I grew up in Alabama and I understand, uh…I know this from my own experience; blacks are not the greatest swimmers, or may not even know how to swim." --Tramm Hudson
"This fellow here, over here with the yellow shirt, macaca, or whatever his name is. He's with my opponent. He's following us around everywhere. And it's just great. ... Let's give a welcome to macaca, here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia."--George Allen
If more proof is needed, then it is obvious that you won't believe what you choose not to believe.
Therick, does the fact that i agree with most of the republican's comments you posted make me a racist? And they actually where sensible and even, dare i say it; amusing.
does the fact that i agree with most of the republican's comments you posted make me a racist?- finarfin
In case Therick doesn't get back here I'll answer;
No.
You've got your cause and effect backwards.
Some more cracker doodle from Fin.
Therick, does the fact that i agree with most of the republican's comments you posted make me a racist?
I agree. The answer is no. It's the fact that you are a racist that makes you agree with the statements.
WOW. I made it pretty friggin' clear I wasn't targeting conservatives, you are the one who continued to be offended. Pretty much revealed that you think the reich wing is the true republican. Too bad, you just marginalized all the real conservatives who I respect.
Now I know why Romney will never get the nod from the republican party.
August, I LOVED the rant. It saved me from having my blood pressure rise, again. :-)
What I cannot understand what the hell did folks think we did before they came along, since I'm 73 and older than them, keep quite?
It's only a matter of moments before Obama's church is brought into this again about how they're somehow anti white or something like that. You all know that this is true.
On the other hand, I was talking with a couple of Obama supporters this morning who also happen to be black, and they're statements were both just about the same. They said:
"As long as Obama isn't supported by Jackson and Sharpton that's the man for me."
In other words, you can add a couple more black folks that think Sharpton and Jackson definitely DO NOT represent them, and their issues at all.
Well, didn't take long for the freepers to respond...
This isn't the first time Bill Bennet has said something that's racially offensive......
Bennett Under Fire for Remark on Crime and Black Abortions
By Brian FalerSpecial to The Washington PostFriday, September 30, 2005; Page A05
Democratic lawmakers and civil rights leaders denounced conservative commentator William J. Bennett yesterday for suggesting on his syndicated radio show that aborting black children would reduce the U.S. crime rate.
The former U.S. education secretary-turned-talk show host said Wednesday that "if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose -- you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." Bennett quickly added that such an idea would be "an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do." But, he said, "your crime rate would go down."
Bennett's comments, flagged by the liberal news media watchdog group Media Matters for America, were quickly condemned by Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), who issued a statement demanding that Bennett apologize. Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) circulated a letter, signed by 10 of his colleagues, demanding that the Salem Radio Network suspend Bennett's show.
Wade Henderson, the executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, demanded that the show be canceled.
<more>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/29/AR2005092902126.html
you know, it is true that the crime rate in the 90's dropped in large part because of Roe v. Wade. I'm not apologizing for his remarks, they were disgusting. However, there was some truth to it. But race doesn't have anything to do with it. It's the socioeconomic factors.
Well, AA women tend not to have abortions in near the percentages that white women do. So if what you say is true (about abortion being linked to reduced crime rates), then it seems that aborting white babies is the ticket (if you apply the "logic" of Bill Bennet)
Sorry Julia, but it's not white babies or black babies. it's poor women who happen to get pregnant, but may have an addiction, or may be too poor to care for their kid, or may even just not care for their kid. That kid, whatever race he/she may be, is more likely to be neglected and/or abused, which is a large factor in turning kids into criminals. Before Roe v Wade, there were still abortions, but only the rich people could afford to send their kid off to "boarding school in Switzerland for nine months." (i.e., send them off to have an abortion.) Once abortion became legal, safe, and relatively cheap, the poor in our country now had that option as well. That's less children growing up below the poverty line, and less children growing up neglected and abused.
What you say is true. But black women do not get abortions in near the percentages that white women do. That's just a fact regardless of socioeconomics. I'm responding to the specifics of what Bill Bennet said and then your assertion that crime went down in the 90's because of abortions - something I hadn't heard before.
ok, I agree with you on that. Sorry, I wasn't trying to be pushy.
I believe that hypothesis was presented in the book "Freakonomics", a very interesting read.
DBEDEN:
You seem to have your "solutions" confused.
You say, "... but only the rich people could afford to send their kid off to "boarding school in Switzerland for nine months." (i.e., send them off to have an abortion.)"
The "nine months off in boarding school" solution was necessary if the child was to be BORN, then put up for adoption.
If the abortion option was taken, there was no need for the "boarding school" scam, the problem was "solved" before anyone was the wiser, and life resumed as normal.
Both the "boarding school" and safe abortion options, granted, were available to the wealthy. The poor all too often turned to backalley butchers and coathangers.
Lemme ask this - Is it really "Playing the race card" or more of acknowledging and not running away from one's heritage and background (the idea of "Blackness")?
I would hope that these concepts are not thought of as interchangeable because they are not.
Unless that is the idea that the concept of "Blackness" is the same as "Playing the race card" in the minds of Caucasians in the USA (I suspect that is the case with regards to conservatives).
It sometimes seems like that Caucasians prefer the Black people they like not be "too Black"
Maybe what Bennett is saying is code for that?
It's not the point of running away from it, or running towards it - race should not be a relevant factor in voting for anyone. And it should not be played either way.
I'm sorry you don't see the reality of life in America then Tommy. I truly hope that race doesn't matter, but no matter what it seems like it's always thrown out there as if it does.
Personally, asking or suggesting that someone disavow part of their heritage/persona because of political expediency is repugnant to me.
I know you're not comfortable with regards to discussions of race so I will just leave my response at that.
Disavow one's heritage? Is that what you think this is about?
Truly, you are the clueless one here, and your insulting post only proves that even more.
Discussing race with you doesn't interest me, you are right about that.
Truly, you are the clueless one here, and your insulting post only proves that even more.
It's like you're some sort of irony bot.
So Spintronic, you mean that Obama, by not "disavowing his heritage" must tell American Negroes to vote for him simply because he is a negro? Comparable heritage is no reason to vote or not vote for a candidate.
How much do you have in straw futures, Finny? That's not even a good try.
He's got futures in crackerisms.
"It sometimes seems like that Caucasians prefer the Black people they like not be "too Black"
Maybe what Bennett is saying is code for that?"
There is no doubt that's what Bennett meant and what people who take Jackson and Sharpton to task for appealing to their natural constituency also mean.
If Obama is the nominee for the Democrats you better believe race will be a factor. Repugs won't let it go and especially with their hardcore racist base. I would vote for Obama because he is all about uniting America but it should be understood, you will have a sizeable segment that will reject him based on skin color.
"Repugs won't let it go and especially with their hardcore racist base."
Yeah, no doubt. I wonder if they'll come up with a push poll asking "Would you vote for Obama if you knew he had a white child?" /sarcasm
Bet not.
I could see that sentiment stewing in Pat Buchannan last night, the look on his face said it all. Crazy Chris Matthews in a lucid moment along with most of the commentators on the panel said that Obama’s win was indeed historically significant whether you supported Obama or not and the commentators seemed generally delighted that this might represent a definite move forward for our country. They seemed proud. Pat wasn’t having it and you could tell he didn't like that at all and he brought out the current Conservative canard about Obama's Blackness accounting for his place in the showing during this election season. I believe had Pat been in a different venue like Fox he would have slipped in some of that old geezer xenophobic rhetoric that he occasionally slips in now and then on MSNBC, he was outnumbered last night by mostly moderates and a couple of Liberals.
What you folks seem to forget is Obama won Iowa with 37% of the vote while Iowa demographically has less than 3% black population.
It is apparent that Obama's mixed racial heritage did not hurt his win in this overwhelmingly white State. It was a non-issue.
On a side note, to say the Republicans base is racist is just plain silly.
On a side note, to say the Republicans base is racist is just plain silly.
Do you have any facts to back this assertion up or is this just another opinion?
Perhaps a discussion of Nixon's and Regan's southern strategy would be pertinent.
While you're at it throw in Reagan's phony story about a "welfare queen" driving a Cadillac or the Willie Horton ad.
Johnny,
Sorry I have to be the one to break it to you, but both Reagan and Nixon are dead.
And as a point of logic, one has to prove the first original assertion before one has to prove the negation.
In other words, your argument is silly. I could say the Democratic base is racist. They voted against the Civil Rights Act in '64. So prove to me they are not racist.
Are there some Republicans racist? No doubt. Are there some Democrats racist? Again unfortunately there are. Lets not advance hate speech on political parties. It is not intellectually honest.
AA,
As you know, blanket statements such as "all Repugs are racists" are only used by those who are intellectually dishonest, for on their very face they are flat out ridiculous.
It's a sleazy ploy to try and invalidate any discussion because they haven't a legitimate leg to stand on when making such an unproven condemnation.
I suspect Johnny falls deeply into that category.
I didn't say all Republicans are racist.
I asked AA for some facts supporting his assertion that the Republican base isn't racist.
Not all Republicans belong to the base of the party, that's why it's called "the base."
I'm still waiting for AA to say something beyond Nixon and Reagan are dead.
POLICY determines whether a political Party is "race friendly" or "race hostile".
Issues such a redlining loans, affirmative action, and "hate crime" legislation separate the parties very neatly on race issues.
If one party OPPOSES legislation and policy that would help black folks NOT be discriminated against, that party will lose the support of black people feeling (to this day) discrimination which harms their families.
Black folks overwhelmingly support Democrats. They do so for a reason: Democrats work to even playing fields, to eliminate the vistages of racism still systemic in our society, and basically stand for equality under law being realized by ALL Americans (women, gays, and non-majority religions included).
When people face discrimination, they know it. When they look to political parties, and one party seeks to remedy the problem, while the other tells them to "get over it" -- their loyalty will be to the obvious friend (and reject the party which denies the problem, seeks to maintain status quo, or blames the victim).
All Republicans certainly may not be racists, but the policies advocated by Republicans do nothing to address discrimination. So IF one is a racist, the GOP is the party to back. That's the fact, Jack.
Tommy, be truthful. Republicans have issues with black folks, otherwise they would not come around every few years and claim that increasing the GOP'S shares of the black vote is a "top, top top priority" as Ed Gillespie and others have claimed.
Pearl,
There are plenty of people that have issues with all kinds of folks, I never said otherwise - what I take exception to are ridiculous statements such as the Republican base is all racists. That is nothing but inflammatory baloney. There are racists of all political stripes, sadly.
How political parties "deal" with blacks or other minorites to suit their own well being is of little interest to me, from either Dems or Reps. Let them have their strategy or whatever they do to garner votes, I don't vote based on their recommendations or their admonitions.
Tommy
You and AA both know that a racist would not support the Democratic Party's platform and for the racists that are indeed voters they most certainly WILL vote for the Republicans. Are all Republicans racist? Of course not. Are racist predisposed to vote for Republicans whose policies are often hostile toward the inclusive diversity friendly policies espoused by the Democratic Party? Hell Yes! And the RNC happily accepts their votes – in fact they pander to them for it. My Momma always told me you will be judged by the company you keep, and it seems to me official Republicandom WILL not reject racist company and like JJ said racist rhetoric is tolerated by them under the guise of protecting free speech. Anyway you two non-racist Conservatives have a good week-end!Lynn,
I don't know which party has more racists, or sexists, or bigots, or any such thing - people who judge others based on skin color, or sex, or ethnicity instead of character and their actions are ignorant, sad, pathetic human beings......I don't pity them, I find them reprehensible. I don't associate with them, so I can't speak to their numbers or their affiliation. My hope for them is they get help and educate themselves to the real value in people, not irrelevancies that they are prejudiced against.
As for the political parties themselves, we disagree on who panders to whom, and have discussed that here before. I respect your opinion, but I don't share it. Actually, both parties pander to keep their respective voting blocks intact - which I also find distasteful, and is probably a reason I am member of neither.
That is my one hope for an Obama candicacy is that he can be an force in healing some of the tensions between those who can't seem to be in agreement over much of anything, he appeals to our positive side, our working together to face common enemies.....the more I see him, the more I like him.
Have a good weekend too!
As you know, blanket statements such as "all Repugs are racists" are only used by those who are intellectually dishonest, for on their very face they are flat out ridiculous.
I believe you are finally correct about something. In fact, the only post that has contained the statement "all Repugs are racists" is your post above.
You have finally confirmed that you are intellectually dishonest and flat out ridiculous.
most of us here have known that for a long time.
"I could say the Democratic base is racist. They voted against the Civil Rights Act in '64. So prove to me they are not racist." - AA
I do believe the bases moved around some because of the Civil Rights Act. The "Dixie-crats" did vote against the Civil Rights Act, but because of that, they switched to the Republican party.
From Wikipedia, with citations: "The (Civil Rights Act) bill divided and engendered a long-term change in the demographics of both political parties. President Johnson realized that supporting this bill would mean losing the South's overwhelming support of the Democratic Party. As Vice President Johnson pushed the Kennedy administration to introduce civil rights legislation, telling Kennedy aide Ted Sorensen that "I know the risks are great and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway."[7] As president, Johnson was warned by Senator Russell that his strong support for the civil rights bill "will not only cost you the South, it will cost you the election." [8] The South indeed started to vote increasingly Republican after 1964. However, political scientists Richard Johnston and Byron Schafer have argued that this development was based more on economics than on race. [9]"
Yeah, every single Republican candidate has evoked the name of Ronald Reagan during this campaign because he's dead and irrelevant, right?
The Republican base is pining away for the glory days of Ronald Reagan, southern strategy and all.
You want to get more current?
"Since 2001, the division has not pursued a single case of voting discrimination against African-Americans. In recent years, less than half of new hires have had any civil rights experience -- and the background of almost half of those has actually been in defending employers against discrimination lawsuits or fighting against affirmative action."
[link to rawstory.com]
Are you saying the Republican base doesn't support this racist strategy?
Johnny,
Why am I not surprised?
Tommy you said it all.
That's your answer in the face of the fact the Republican Party has pursued a racially divisive strategy backed up by their policies once they're in office for the past 40 years?
Johnny,
Every statement you make is wild hyperbole. It is useless discussing this with you because when I do, you just make another unfounded, silly, and outlandish claim.
Have a good weekend.
Hyperbole?
It is a fact the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department under W Bush hasn't pursued a single case of voting discrimination on behalf of an African-American voter since 2001
"Instead of pursuing cases of discrimination against African Americans, the Division under President Bush has focused on supposed reverse discrimination against whites and religious discrimination cases against Christians."
[link to www.msnbc.msn.com]
Are you telling me the Republican base doesn't support this perversion of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department to protect the rights of the white and Christian majorities instead of minorities?
Hyperbole indeed!
What AA meant to say was "Oh, uh... hmm. Facts. I better get out now."
Bittermarv,
Not true. I countered Johnny's contention showing how illogical it is. He simply is tossing out random articles that do not in anyway refute my contention.
If you want to take a stab at it, I challenge you to prove that all Democrats are not racists.
If you fall for it and try to prove otherwise, I'll simply reply by tossing out the names of dead Democrat Presidents from 20 or more years ago and policies in Democratic administrations like Johnny. It won't matter what you say because I'll just toss out something else that is equally irrelevant and say that proves my point. Lets see how long you want to go through that futile exercise.
ANOTHERAMERICAN:
Before you go debating ANY policy issue, there is a fundamental baseline we need to address:
The President, in his oath of office, vows to enforce the laws and uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Do you believe that this President is enforcing all laws, as written by Congress to be carried out by Executive Branch departments ... like the Justice Department, EPA, or OSHA?
Or do you believe that Bush enforces laws he AGREES with, and instructs his departments to bury or ignore laws that he DISAGREES with? (Hint: think "signing statements").
The excellent point has been made, backed by empirical evidence, that the Bush Justice Department is NOT attempting to enforce a myriad of anti-discrimination laws.
The GOP's record of perverting the intent of law was clearly on display with Reagan's choice to head HUD ... Samuel R. Pierce ... who used the position NOT to help poor folks get housing, but instead to line the pockets of big contractors (and GOP contributors).
Another example, when heading the EEOC, Clarence Thomas neglected and allowed to lapse hundreds of age-discrimination cases. Ooops.
This failure affects millions of real people. Are these people wrong to expect the GOP President to enforce the laws on the books? After all, he SWORE that's what he would do. The evidence shows he LIED about that pledge under oath (just like Reagan before him).
You wish to portray Political Parties as "race neutral", with racists likely to be members of either. This portrayal hopes to avoid ISSUE examination which shows clearly that there is a long record of Democrats crafting laws to eliminate discrimination (and help minorities to achieve "equal treatment under the laws"), and GOP so-called "enforcers" IGNORING those laws, under orders from leadership. RACIST BEHAVIOR? Without any doubt.
In other words, your argument is silly. I could say the Democratic base is racist. They voted against the Civil Rights Act in '64. So prove to me they are not racist.
AA, that statement is dishonest and you know it.
Blacks started switching to the Democratic party, when they perceived that the Democrats were now doing more for them, than the Republicans were (around the late 1930s). This was due to Roosevelt, and his "New Deal" policies. Whereas the Republicans started courting the voting block they couldn't previously get (white southerners). In this case, by the time the majority of blacks moved to the Democratic party (around the 1960s), a great many of the previous white southern Democrats, still didn't want to move to the Republican party, because it was the party of Lincoln and "black person lovers". The old "Dixiecrats", didn't start switching to the Republican party until the 1970s, and it took nearly 30 years, before you could consider the south firmly in the Republican camp.
Pearlene,
I well know the history but thanks anyway.
You are missing the point that I was making with Johnny. I was simply using this example to expose his illogic.
His entreaty for me to prove the GOP base is not racist is as illogical as for him to prove to me the Democratic Base is not racist.
I gave up with Johnny. I am of the opinion you cannot argue logic with one who is illogical.
"Logic" aside, Johnny does recite facts - from varied sourcing - which make his point beyond doubt. The "base" of the Repugnant electoral success is indisputably demonstrated in the actions of the Repugnants once elected. Were that not true, how would they get re-elected?
The short answer is, they wouldn't!
His entreaty for me to prove the GOP base is not racist is as illogical as for him to prove to me the Democratic Base is not racist.
Asking you what facts lead you to believe the Republican base isn't racist isn't illogical. I assume you're basing your belief on more than wishful thinking but maybe you aren't.
I've highlighted the 40 years of history which lead me to believe they are racist up to and including the current Bush administration.
I'll have to remember that one....
"Logic aside"
Hahahaha....
Just remember to cite accurately:
"Logic" aside . . .
The implication of the quotes is clear - far more so than your attempts to ignore the support evinced for Bungle and the undeniably racist misuse of the DOJ by Bungle, by and from that very "base" of the Repugnant Party: your version of "logic" is quite refutable, and flies in the face of observation and deduction as well.
On a side note, to say the Republicans base is racist is just plain silly.
AA, it may be hard for you to accept but the truth is today's Republicans include the same racists, both northern & southern - who left the Democratic Party in the 60s and 70s because they hated and hate our Civil Rights.
Pearlene,
Now you are starting to sound like Johnny.
What Pearlene is saying is right on. That you don't want to admit or own it is naivete. I don't blame you though. Maybe that's not you personally, but anyone with eyes and ears can see which way the wind blows. What you say is silly with all the evidence coming from your RW windbags in the media as well as the voter caging schemes and other schemes to disenfranchise the black vote.
Julia,
You are starting to sound like Pearlene.
;-)
Thanks, that is a nice compliment. Pearlene is wise and has a wicked wit.
AA, while I won't say all Republicans are racists, the Republican party uses race-mongering tactics. It works because either other Republicans agree with them or it's not as important as economic issues.
I'll save you a further history lesson but you know for a fact the GOP's hold on southern states was based on their hate for blacks. How many elections did they win based on referendums on the Confederate flag? The use of ads like Willie Horton where nothing was said, just the image of a criminal black man was enough to scare folks into voting Republican and please don't tell me what a poor candidate Dukakis was. If he was a lousy candidate he would have failed on his own, no need for Republicans to run the Horton ad in the first place. Jessie Helms in 1990 found himself several points down shortly before the election, ran an ad saying "You needed that job but they gave it to a minority". Republicans use words like 'quotas,' 'reverse discrimination' all the while knowing that white folks, especially successful white folks, practiced very vigorous affirmative action for themselves. All the better colleges gave preferences to children of alumni. A set of special slots were reserved for them. It's how George W. Bush got into Yale but you don't hear that discussed when Republicans are screaming about minorities and affirmative action.
Pearlene,
Now you are starting to sound like Johnny.
I agree. They both know what they are talking about. Too bad you haven't clue number one.
If we could abort everything that comes out of BB's mouth we could solve alot of our greenhouse gases problem. I am not saying we should but if we did, greenhouse gasses would go down.
That is true and funny.
I must ask you all, what has Al Sharpton done in the last 15 years that has you all hating him so much?
I know what the conservatives like to bring up: Brawley
Well, Al has been championing civil rights causes like no one else. I will admit that he has made some statements that some folks have disagreed with, but damn! This guy has been on the front lines for years, and it seems that the people that are the loudest about dissing Al Sharpton are the ones that arent doing anything. Sadly it is the state of affairs in Black America. Bill Cosby said a million truths, and all we did was tear him down. Al Sharpton has, in my eyes refined himself, learning from his past. I am just tired of people saying that Al is this, or Al is that. WHAT ARE YOU DOING?
In my opinion Al Sharpton is a race-hustler. I hold the same opinion of Jesse Jackson. If you ever get a chance, read:
Shakedown: Exposing the Real Jesse Jackson
by Kenneth Timmerman
Thats funny because I have never felt hustled by Sharpton.
I am not speaking of Jesse. I dont hold him in such a high place. But I wont waste my time tearing down people.
Sharpton has sipmly said "we wont stand for this" about injustice.
Tone, what you say about Al Sharpton is true. He has refined himself over the years. When he's in a respectful forum he is very good. I think he is a sincere and thougtful man.
As long as there are Bill Bennetts in the world there will be Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons.
And vice versa.
Can someone explain to me why the offspring of a white woman and a black man is considered black, and, further, a representative of the entire black population ? Why isn't Obama considered white ? Same goes for Halle Berry, who was touted as being the first black actress to win an Academy Award, and yet her mother is white.
Atheist: this is because of the one drop of black blood rule that was created by the white establishment (I am ignorant to the year)
I dont think that they were too excited about race mixing.
look it up as I am doing now! LOL.
And you must admit, whatever gene inside us that makes us black, is very very dominate in most cases of mixed kids.
and that is what America did. They said "if you have any black in you, then you are ALL black. As if that is a bad thing.
What color are they? They're both black in appearance, and to consider them "white" would be silly, and not how they are seen physically.
Would you rather they called him Mullato?
I think we should just call them Purty.
Ha ! Many of them ARE purty. :-)
I wasn't really proposing that we call Obama or the other mixed-race people anything, I just wonder why we call them black when one parent is white, and I wonder even more why they would be considered a representative of the black population, as if even a 100% black person could be one (as a prior poster pointed out).
Probably for the same reason, those who are several generations removed from Africa, and probably have never been to Africa, prefer to be known as African-American. Until all of us accept each other as American, the hyphenated Americans will probably continue to used. BTW, I have a friend who was born in Canada and came to the US and has subsequently been granted citizenship does not require me to refer to him as a Canadian-American.
Now you've made me think ... I don't consider Obama to be black because he has a white parent, but I do consider him to be African American, or close to it, because one of his parents is from Kenya, and Obama actually lived there for a while.
This might sound dumb, but I'm actually hoping that our first black president will be 100% black, both parents being black. For some reason I would consider that more of a victory over racism.
Whoops, he did not LIVE in Africa. He has travelled there.
Because "blackness" has more to do with how the larger society treats and perceives you rather than technically being someone that's half black/half white. And how one is treated and perceived, for the most part, that's how one identifies themselves. Being mixed race is nothing new to black people. Whites can be mixed with any race or ethnicity -- but not black. This all goes back to the one-drop rule that has its roots in Slavery and Reconstruction. Furthermore, Obama is not really that different than many African-Americans that have white ancestors and is perceived and treated as black. My great great grandfather was Anglo-Saxon; great great grandmother was part Seminole, part black, however, in America, blackness cancels out everything since blacks have always been considered inferior to other races and ethnicities in this country, and because of this were placed in a caste system and considered second-class citizens. W.E.B. Dubois once said a black man is one who rides Jim Crow in Georgia. So blackness in America has more to do with a social construction than one is half black/half white.
Maybe our great-great-great-grandchildren will live in a time where racism is only a word in history books, and hard to comprehend. And although I hope that day arrives sooner, I just hope it arrives.
Bennett's gratuitous and loaded comment came out of left field. Too bad the segment had to end before Donna Brazile could add her two cents worth. Bennett simply revealed that he's overly obsessed with Jackson and Sharpton. He seems to follow the line of thinking of those who believe that African Americans--at least those African Americans who don't agree with him--are easily misled, monolithic and unable to think for themselves. One hears this same tune from Bill O'Reilly. And like O'Reilly, after his visit to Sylvia's, what Bennett thought was a compliment really was not. How arrogant of him to think that the "black community" needs to be "taught" anything. Does he also think the "white community" was "taught" something by Huckabee's victory? And, if so, what? How limited of him to think that Obama's style, opinions and leadership can not co-exist with those of Sharpton and Jackson or any number of other political figures. And that any thinking person would not have the ability to accept or reject specific aspects of their individual positions. Perhaps one of the main problems I have with this comment--as well as Bennett's earlier comment last night on CNN that "George Bush has done more for Africa than the Congressional Black Caucus ever did"--is that he appears to feel the need to use Obama as a foil to what he does not like about the "black community."
"Barack Hussein Obama" ... "has taught the black community you don't have to act like Jesse Jackson ... like Al Sharpton"... -Bill Bennett-
Well.. Mr. Bill Bennett... You could be a better man if Obama taught you to act like "Barack Hussein Obama" or Martin Luther King or any number of wonderful black leaders our country has benefited from.
Furthermore, I respect Al and Jesse much more than a small man like Bill Bennett. Bennett was desperately waiting for his chance to make this ugly attack on black leaders. Obama can act as black as he wants to... As he remains the great Individual American Man that he is.
Congratulations To Obama... And now... It's on to New Hampshire!
I don't know much about Bill Bennett, but he was CZAR in GOP administrations, head honcho, the big noise, the "go-to" guy to get things done.
He was assigned DRUGS and EDUCATION. How'd that work out for you, Bill? Eliminate drug problems, did you? And education; problem SOLVED, under your leadership? Tell us about ACHIEVEMENT, Bill!
So, then he wrote a book of VIRTUE, in between multi-million dollar junkets to Vegas. Ah, the virtue of gambling! (or is that, the virtue of HYPOCRICY? Or maybe the virtue of being obese, and without self control enough to pass that second cheeseburger?) Tell us about VIRTUE, Bill!
So, as a "expert" ... on ANYTHING ... the record of the Bill Bennett I know would prevent anyone from trusting him to change a lightbulb, let alone give any weight to any opinion he might hold. He's a LOSER.
Leave it to a bigot like Bennett to turn a positive into a negative attack. Isn't it possible that blacks can admire Obama and Jackson at the same time? God forbid.
Probably for the same reason, those who are several generations removed from Africa, and probably have never been to Africa, prefer to be known as African-American. Until all of us accept each other as American, the hyphenated Americans will probably continue to used.
The hyphenated American terms tend to be especially important to minorities who have suffered from diaspora when coming to America and have been severely mistreated. Most blacks have never been to Africa, or know what part they came from, the language spoken or the culture their ancestors practiced. IMHO, African-American is a way to reestablish that lost connection, in addition to being a step up from the term negro and colored.
BTW, I have a friend who was born in Canada and came to the US and has subsequently been granted citizenship does not require me to refer to him as a Canadian-American.
Canadians and blacks have very different histories of immigration to America, so I don't think your example really fits. Your friend doesn't necessarily "need" a term to reaffirm their Canadian roots or culture; they never lost it. This is also why whites of German, Irish, Italian, Polish, etc. descent rarely use the terms German American, Irish American, etc. Those groups have assimilated into American largely of their own will. Some have retained their heritage while others rejected it; either way, they had a choice in the matter.
Points taken, but I think it's more likely that whites don't hyphenate because we've distanced ourselves from our heritage. I am just as much a Euro-American as most US blacks are African American, but I don't refer to myself as Euro-American because my family has retained none of their ancestors' culture and I feel no connection to Europe. I just like to travel there. :-)
I wonder if some blacks resent the African American label, because they feel no connection to Africa just like I feel no connection to Europe.
Correction: my first sentence should have read as The hyphenated American terms tend to be especially important to minorities whose ancestors have suffered from diaspora when coming to America and have been severely mistreated.
Good point Carn
HEY DID ANYONE SEE HOW SOMEONE LET O'REILLY GET TO OBAMA AT HIS SPEECH TODAY TO ASK HIM WILL HE COME ON TO HIS SHOW? OBAMA YOU TOLD OREILLY YOU WOULD SPEAK TO HIM AFTER THE PRIMARYS. WELL OBAMA YOU BETTER SHOW UP BECAUSE I CAN SEE OREILLY, FOX NEWS AND THE REST OF THE MEDIA WHO WERE SO MUCH IN LOVE WITH OBAMA WHEN THEY JUST KNEW HE WOULD NOT WIN ARE NOW SCARED THAT HE MIGHT ARE GOING AFTER HIM WILL BE SHOWING THAT TAPE FROM CSPAN 24/7 AND SAYING HE IS NOT A HONEST PERSON. OBAMA I HOPE YOU WILL LET YOUR PEOPLE SEE THAT TAPE TO SEE WHAT YOU SAID TOO OREILLY BECAUSE HE JUST KNOW HE GOT YOU NOW IF YOU DON'T SHOW UP.
I almost hate to say that you make a good point. I noticed that O'Reilly is one of the few Fuxers who is attacking Obama. The rest are so blinded by their hate of Clinton they cannot see the threat of Obama to their precious Republican theocracy. O'l Loofah Man needs to rally his men !
Well, if I'm reading your shouting right, Obama said he would speak to him after the primaries, not necessarily go on his show.
Also, "after the primaries" is when the Dems and Reps have chosen their nominees. That won't be for a long while, certainly not after the New Hampshire primaries (as O'Reilly no doubt interpreted Obama's response.)
Tex, you are one righteous guy. I had thoughts along your same lines as to party and racism and was unable to articulate them like you so ably did. Thanks.
So what is Bennett saying? When blacks detect racism they should not point it out? Is he saying there is no racism in America, and that Sharpton and Jackson are making it up as they go along? It would have helped if he would have given an example of something Jackson and Sharpton did that bthered him so. Well, not one example, but show us a pattern where they're pointing out racism where it doesn't exist. Frankly, Bennett is a racist, an old school, Archie Bunker type. Maybe as a kid, some black guys beat him up (not that there's anything wrong with that) or, dough boy that he is, he's envious of black athletic achievement ( a lot of that going around). Notice how he always wants to talk about race. A discussion on crime, to him, turns to blacks committing crime. Liberalism, to him, means giving blacks goodies they don't deserve--not programs to address historical oppression of blacks. Racism, to him, is over. What's amazing is that he's presented as a presentable voice in political discussion.
Bennett....
Thanks Bill, I guess black folk can rest easy knowing they(we) have YOUR seal of approval....
....and for you ill-informed minority & white voters out there, there is a black man running AND winning elections out there.
People are speaking a lot about Obama in France and not because they like him but because he's black and for french people black people have small brains and "smell" (go see what former president Chirac said about that). France is just so racist, it is just unbelievable...
One famous "philosopher" and journalist said a few months ago about Obama that "he is a well integrated negro in US society". I was so outraged reading that. Bottom line I can no longer live here, it is starting to be really unhealthy for one's mind...