I Agree David (0.00 / 0)

Racism is a factor in this election. Think about these two things:

1. Jeremiah Wright has injected more racism into not only this nomination but into the media with his comments past and present than any other single person in all of America. The media did not invent Wright or put words in his mouth. He did that all by his own choosing and even chose to go public and knowingly magnify it after the first firestorm.

So one guy you should never forget to mention when discussing Race Questions is Wright.

2. When in our history have Black Americans lined up behind one Democratic nomination candidate in the numbers they have today? Never. Same holds true for Black surrogates. So people can talk about White racism, but to ignore the Black racism that is going on in this contest is sticking ones head in the sand. When people predominately vote for a candidate based on his skin color that is pure racism in the context that you are using.

So yes I agree there is racism in this contest - but it is from both Blacks and Whites.

---

by: SayItLoud @ Sun May 04, 2008 at 18:48:07 PM UTC

The definition of racism (4.00 / 1)

Many sociologists will tell you that racism in the real sense cannot come from disempowered communities. Prejudice can, but not racism, because racism really means the deingration and oppression of one race over another - based on race. An oppressed, disenfranchised, disempowered community cannot commit racism, because that community is not in the power position.

So the concept that blacks have committed "racism" in this election is absurd. And the concept that blacks voting for Democrats is "racism" - well, I'm not even going to address that one. That's so far out there it's not even worth acknowledging.

Whites like to claim they are the victims of racism whenever black people bring up basic, undebatable data about inequality, poverty, disenfranchisement, etc. But remember: racism is ultimately about power. And at a macro level, whites in America have been and are in the power position in relation to black people - and racism has been used to preserve that unfair structure. It is white America that needs to acknowledge that simple reality if we are ever to reach a more equal society.

---

by: David Sirota @ Sun May 04, 2008 at 18:58:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Webster's Dictionary (0.00 / 0)

defines race as:
2: racial prejudice or discrimination  

So by definition racism is prejudice. And in this case it is voting prejudice clearly and predominately based on skin color/race. So there you have it. Call it Reverse Racism if you like - whatever the term it is alive.

I am glad you didn't disagree with my Wright comments though.

---

by: SayItLoud @ Sun May 04, 2008 at 19:17:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Citing dictionary definitions (0.00 / 0)

Doesn't pass for argument. This issue is a little more complicated than can be settled by a one-liner from Webster's.

There is also a difference being for somebody based on an inherent attribute, and being against them based on that attribute.

There are multitudes of people voting for Hillary because she is female. I do not consider that sexism. They may simply think it would be great to have a woman president. I think it would be great too - just not this particular woman. But it would be sexism to vote against her because of it.

Terms such as racism and sexism imply unfair and negative bias or prejudice.

Slacking toward the apocalypse

---

by: roberto @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:33:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I am so tired of this sh*t.... (4.00 / 3)

When in our history have Black Americans lined up behind one Democratic nomination candidate in the numbers they have today?

Black people have been supporting white candidates for DECADES.  Now they support a viable AA presidential candidate and they're racists?  I should also point out that HRC had the majority of black support as late as Dec. 2007, but Bill jumped in and screwed things up for her.

Are the women who support HRC sexist?  You are so backwards on this race issue, I don't know where to start.  And the sad thing is that you probably never will be able to empathize with the opposing point of view, so I don't even think I'll bother to engage.

---

by: happycozy @ Sun May 04, 2008 at 21:33:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I disagree (4.00 / 1)

All crazy ministers are bad. Wright, Falwell, Robertson, Hagee, Meeks, Oral Roberts, Louis Farrakhan and all the rest who have said bad things in the name of religion. It is not racist to point out that Wright is a nut job. I am a Democrat and I am proudly going to vote for whoever wins, Senator Obama or Senator Clinton. But Wright will hurt Senator Obama during the general election. Just as Senator Clinton's baggage will hurt her. There also will be an element of either racism or sexism depending on who wins come November for us Democats to overcome. So we need to get ready for that and work to surmount those problems instead of whining that the MSM is picking on "our" guys crazy minister.

---

by: gar2458 @ Sun May 04, 2008 at 19:36:16 PM UTC

shenanigans? (0.00 / 0)

the superdelegate shenanigans that are sure to follow

Explain, please.

---

by: Chachy @ Sun May 04, 2008 at 19:40:53 PM UTC

Race smace (0.00 / 0)

To me the discussion of race with respect to Rev. Wright is a grand distraction.

Wright has correctly labeled American foreign policy as disastrous and dangerous.

Obama, when confronted with any kind of progressive agenda, runs and hides under the covers.

If he disagrees with Wright, he is both an idiot and dangerous.

---

by: lentinel @ Sun May 04, 2008 at 19:56:28 PM UTC

Wright Is The Racist Here. (0.00 / 1)

The public record shows that Wright is an anti-American, hate-mongering, and delusional racist.

Acknowledging this does not make one racist.

---

by: JoeCHI @ Sun May 04, 2008 at 19:56:48 PM UTC

What does anti-American mean? (4.00 / 1)

Repugs loved to throw that word around to scare the crap out of dems.  Please tell me what anti-American means.

---

by: happycozy @ Sun May 04, 2008 at 21:38:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

One way to be "anti-American" (0.00 / 0)

Blame one segment of the US populace - say, gays and lesbians - for incurring the Christian God's wrath and causing Him to destroy the WTC on 9/11/01 and kill so many people.  Another way is to blame the victims of hurricane Katrina for up-seeting the Christian God to such an extent that He had no real choice but to smite the city with a Great Flood.

Then there's always the old stand-by form of anti-Americanism - never saying a damned word about the hatred that underlies the first two.

What does Anti-American? Acting against the principles that are the bases of our American experiment in representative democracy.

But, what do I know...

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 13:01:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sirota's right (0.00 / 0)

I am reminded of a short but pungent Letter to the Editor by one Daniel Welch of Lombard, IL that both the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times saw fit to publish. I wish I'd written it myself.  It said:

It has become apparent that Barack Obama is somehow responsible for everything that everybody he ever knew ever said, while John McCain isn't even responsible for the things that he himself has said.

Now, why's sTiVo bringing race into that, I hear you cry?

Simple.  Denunciation politics has always been a weapon deployed more powerfully, and more frequently against African-American politicians than against whites.  Is there an African-American who has run for office anywhere outside a majority-black constituency who has not been asked to denounce Louis Farrakhan?  Why should they have to, if there is no association between the two?  The underlying racial current is why this tactic is so powerful.  I don't mean to imply that every white person is a Klansman at heart, or that there are not degrees of racism, but neither am I willing to see this phenomenon swept under the rug.

Now it's true that Barack Obama has more association with Reverend Wright than some of these others had with Farrakhan, but the unwillingness of many to let this go is still worthy of some examination.  

Now, I don't know if Daniel Welch of Lombard had in mind this racial subtext when he wrote his letter.  He might have been thinking more of the extraordinary Teflon treatment McCain gets from the media.  But he might have been thinkin of the racial angle too.  If so, he was certainly wise not to mention it in his letter.  Would either paper have printed it, if he had?

I rest my case.  It may make folks uncomfortable but there it is.  

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

---

by: sTiVo @ Sun May 04, 2008 at 22:49:52 PM UTC

agree (0.00 / 0)

The so-called Wright controversy is an attempt to:

1. tear down the black community and the progressive role of the black church.

2. hold black people to account in the white power structure and make sure they play by the rules of white racist american capitalism.

3. get clinton nominated as the pro-war candidate. I mean, look at everything the Clinton's have done on this issue already: the jesse jackson comparison, the wish to have two candidates who "really love the country," the use of the Kenyan photo, HRC's pandering to white working class racism, etc.

4. tear down a moderately progressive black candidate who might possibly threaten the imperial project of US supremacy abroad.

Compare the coverage of the Wright issue to the coverage of Clinton's threat of mass murder and genocide against the "Iranian nation." The difference in coverage is based on HRC's full commitment to US empire and politics as usual.

---

by: sambarns @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:16:08 AM UTC