Why are you assuming that his being black tipped her over? What makes you think it wasn't his strength of character/policies?
I'm going to go with the subtle and insidious hand of racism.
Yes, even this is slightly racist if you're saying the only reason she endorsed Obama is for his skin color.
You're saying that Oprah is only supporting Obama for those reasons, when the exact same reasons apply to an equally viable candidate. There must be some other reason that tipped Oprah over to Obama instead of Hillary.
I'm not saying she's only supporting him because he's black -- there's plenty of other reasons to support Barack Obama which I can only assume Oprah endorses as well -- I'm just saying that given the entire field of candidates and Oprah's history of not endorsing politicians, my feeling is that the final straw which got her to come out in support of Obama is that he's a viable black candidate with a platform she supports. I think if all things considered, but now Obama was a progressive presidential candidate from the state of Illinois who was white, no I don't think Oprah would come out to endorse him.
There's plenty of non-race related reasons Oprah supports Barack Obama, but I think the ultimately deciding factor in her endorsement is his race. I then don't see why that's so upsetting to some people.
What if Obama had been a progressive presidential blah blah blah who was a white woman? Do you think Oprah would have endorsed him?
Why are you assuming that his being black tipped her over? What makes you think it wasn't his strength of character/policies?
I'm going to go with the subtle and insidious hand of racism.
Yes, even this is slightly racist if you're saying the only reason she endorsed Obama is for his skin color.
It's not the "only" reason, but I mean come on -- what's so horrible about acknowledging that it is a reason? A major one, even? Why do we all get so squeamish about that?
Why are you assuming that his being black tipped her over? What makes you think it wasn't his strength of character/policies?
I'm going to go with the subtle and insidious hand of racism.
Yes, even this is slightly racist if you're saying the only reason she endorsed Obama is for his skin color.
It's not the "only" reason, but I mean come on -- what's so horrible about acknowledging that it is a reason? A major one, even? Why do we all get so squeamish about that?
Because you are not a fucking psychic and you do not know her motivations, so you go with the easiest explanation.
What if Obama had been a progressive presidential blah blah blah who was a white woman? Do you think Oprah would have endorsed him?
Can't say. I can say that Obama's race in all likelihood had a good amount to do with her endorsement, though. Why is that a problem? Seriously? Like, I honestly can't figure it out.
Why are you assuming that his being black tipped her over? What makes you think it wasn't his strength of character/policies?
I'm going to go with the subtle and insidious hand of racism.
Yes, even this is slightly racist if you're saying the only reason she endorsed Obama is for his skin color.
It's not the "only" reason, but I mean come on -- what's so horrible about acknowledging that it is a reason? A major one, even? Why do we all get so squeamish about that?
Because it sounds racist to a lot of people, and society is hardwired to react strongly to any sign of racism, no matter how remote. Whether it is racist or not is a different question.
Why are you assuming that his being black tipped her over? What makes you think it wasn't his strength of character/policies?
I'm going to go with the subtle and insidious hand of racism.
Yes, even this is slightly racist if you're saying the only reason she endorsed Obama is for his skin color.
It's not the "only" reason, but I mean come on -- what's so horrible about acknowledging that it is a reason? A major one, even? Why do we all get so squeamish about that?
Umm because racism is a pretty big deal and if you're going to throw around accusations like "The darkies are all going to just vote for each other every time!" then you'd better come up with some more substantial evidence than "but...they're both black!"
Why are you assuming that his being black tipped her over? What makes you think it wasn't his strength of character/policies?
I'm going to go with the subtle and insidious hand of racism.
Yes, even this is slightly racist if you're saying the only reason she endorsed Obama is for his skin color.
It's not the "only" reason, but I mean come on -- what's so horrible about acknowledging that it is a reason? A major one, even? Why do we all get so squeamish about that?
Because you are not a fucking psychic and you do not know her motivations, so you go with the easiest explanation.
Why are you so determined to deny it as an explanation? I guess what I don't understand is why white people get upset with a black person backing another black person based on their skin color.
And sometimes the easiest explanation is the easiest for a reason, man.
Why are you assuming that his being black tipped her over? What makes you think it wasn't his strength of character/policies?
I'm going to go with the subtle and insidious hand of racism.
Yes, even this is slightly racist if you're saying the only reason she endorsed Obama is for his skin color.
It's not the "only" reason, but I mean come on -- what's so horrible about acknowledging that it is a reason? A major one, even? Why do we all get so squeamish about that?
I don't think anyone here is arguing against it being a reason, or even a major one. You started the thread saying "because he's black", not "partly" or "mainly" because he's black. Then you said this:
How is it racist? I'm serious. For all the Christians who only choose to vote for Christian candidates, should we be similarly ashamed of them? Or all the whites who only vote for whites, etc.
I'm pretty sure that Oprah has voted for presidential candidates before Obama came along, and I'm pretty sure that most of the people she voted for in the past weren't black.
As for why endorse a presidential candidate now? Maybe she, like most other Americans, are starting to realize just how much the GOP has fucked over our country, and she's now extra-motivated to see someone topple the GOP throne. Who knows.
There were a lot of white celebrities who seemed fairly politically neutral about politics, only to go gung-ho for GWB in 2004 over the Iraq War, which they saw as "OMG, the most pressing issue ever!" But you didn't see anyone accusing them of only supporting Bush because he was white.
I don't think anyone here is arguing against it being a reason, or even a major one. You started the thread saying "because he's black", not "partly" or "mainly" because he's black. Then you said this:
How is it racist? I'm serious. For all the Christians who only choose to vote for Christian candidates, should we be similarly ashamed of them? Or all the whites who only vote for whites, etc.
Well technically, there are a lot of white people in this country who do only vote for whites. Have you ever voted for a non-white president? Does that make you a racist?
How is it racist? I'm serious. For all the Christians who only choose to vote for Christian candidates, should we be similarly ashamed of them? Or all the whites who only vote for whites, etc.
He has plenty of other credentials, but I mean clearly the one that separates him for Oprah is his similar melanin count. Also, considering that nothing besides a white male has held the office in the entire history of the nation, how is it really racist because Oprah wants to see another member of her historically discriminated against social group achieve an important first?
It is racist because it assumes that all black(minorities) people share some kind of inherent difference from whites. You are giving your vote to someone based not on ideology or policies, but instead because they share a PHYSICAL feature which has no bearing on their ability to lead the country.
Christians voting for Christian candidates is not wrong because they share a common ideological background, I do not choose to vote as such, but it is important to note the difference between a physical feature vs. a subscribed belief.
It really isn't a big deal, but don't pretend that purporting the idea that blacks and whites are inherently different isn't a big deal.
I'm pretty sure that Oprah has voted for presidential candidates before Obama came along, and I'm pretty sure that most of the people she voted for in the past weren't black.
As for why endorse a presidential candidate now? Maybe she, like most other Americans, are starting to realize just how much the GOP has fucked over our country, and she's now extra-motivated to see someone topple the GOP throne. Who knows.
There were a lot of white celebrities who seemed fairly politically neutral about politics, only to go gung-ho for GWB in 2004 over the Iraq War, which they saw as "OMG, the most pressing issue ever!" But you didn't see anyone accusing them of only supporting Bush because he was white.
I don't think anyone here is arguing against it being a reason, or even a major one. You started the thread saying "because he's black", not "partly" or "mainly" because he's black. Then you said this:
How is it racist? I'm serious. For all the Christians who only choose to vote for Christian candidates, should we be similarly ashamed of them? Or all the whites who only vote for whites, etc.
Well technically, there are a lot of white people in this country who do only vote for whites. Have you ever voted for a non-white president? Does that make you a racist?
Only, as in that's the only reason why they're voting for them. I haven't voted for a black person because there have been none before Obama who have interested me as a candidate, not because they happen to be black or white.
Similarly, I've never voted for someone only because they're Christian. Or only because they're attractive. Or only because of any one (and in this case, superficial) issue...
I'm sure it could have been Hillary. But Obama seems like a much better fit for Oprah (and her show). Maybe even a perfect fit. He's charismatic, 'inspirational', and a pretty good story. Hillary is a by-the-numbers, grinding politician. A style that works well when you're trying to get things done in the senate, but getting people behind you in "fuck yeah!" way? No.
It really isn't a big deal, but don't pretend that purporting the idea that blacks and whites are inherently different isn't a big deal.
I'm not saying that white and black people are "inherently different." I never have. I am saying that the experience of being black in America is different than the experience of being white, and that Oprah and Obama sharing this experience is a notable thing.
I'm sorry celery but you're making a totally ignorant argument. You're really not qualified to determine what another persons experiences were like based on qualitative aspects.
I'm sorry celery but you're making a totally ignorant argument. You're really not qualified to determine what another persons experiences were like based on qualitative aspects.
What? Are you serious? So am I to take it that your position is that the white and black experience in the United States is identical? Or that the black experience in the United States is not notable? Or what? All you've really said is that I'm ignorant and not much else.
If you want me to google up some links of people talking about the black experience, or black unity, or black pride, or group identity or whatever the fuck else, I can do that, but I thought shared minority group experience was a pretty uncontroversial thing.
It trivializes all of the good in his policies and his stances. It's essentially stating that his skin color is the deciding characteristic of him as a candidate, and suggests that it's the defining one as well.
I mean, this is of course assuming that someone (Oprah or whoever else) is backing him because he's black.
Edit: or even placing both race and ideology on the same pedestal of value when picking a leader, reducing the latter's worth to diddly.
You can also find links of people talking about white unity and white pride, and white power. You're being really myopic here.
America is too big and culturally diverse to fall into such simple classification Celery. You're basically saying that because these people share a skin color they all had exactly the same experiences regardless of socioeconomic status.
It'd be great to finally get over the non-white president guy hurdle. And since Hillary is making herself more unappealing as time moves on, Obama it is for me.
You're just saying that 'cause you're black.
:P He's the first truly electable black candidate, and (of course) he's liberal, and kinda despise everyone who stands a chance of beating him. I'd be crazy not to vote for him.
Voting for someone based on their skin colour may be wrong, but a hell of a lot of presidents have been voted in because they were white. Not directly, mind you - no minorities opposed them, and no women - but they represented white middle class values America in the same way that Obama may represent black middle-class American values. So, if a black woman decides to challenge that by voting for a black candidate, how is she any worse than the generations of WASPs before her? Black candidates share (presumably) the same viewpoint as black voters. WASP candidates share the same viewpoint as WASP voters. You vote for someone who will best represent your interests. Wouldn't someone who shares your viewpoint understand the issues that face you better? I mean, this isn't an issue of skin colour, it's an issue of life experience and shared social history.
America is too big and culturally diverse to fall into such simple classification Celery. You're basically saying that because these people share a skin color they all had exactly the same experiences regardless of socioeconomic status.
Can you see how that is flawed?
Minority groups exist. Actually, minority and majority groups exist -- lots and lots of different groups exist. When my two Mexican friends met each other, they spent a good long while talking about the shared experience of being Mexican. Does it make their life story's identical? Not by a longshot, but it does create a shared group identity which leads to similar experiences.
If two rich people with different skin color get together, they have the shared experience of being rich. When two people with the same skin color but different socioeconomic backgrounds get together, they have the shared experience of their skin color. People of the same religion, people from the same town, people of the same sexual orientation, etc. American society groups and classifies people, and belonging to those groups gives one a shared experience with other people in those groups. What's controversial about this?
The Green Eyed Monster on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
It is racist because it assumes that all black(minorities) people share some kind of inherent difference from whites.
No one's saying that, though. He's saying that she might repose a lot of hope in Obama because of a shared cultural history. In no other context is it racist or even controversial to suggest that, all other things being equal, someone from Missouri would understand Missourians' concerns better than someone from Juneau.
Like everyone, Oprah has a set of political priorities and she feels that he can best advance those. The millionaires in my neighborhood also have a set of priorities and will vote for the guy that they feel can best advance those, and it will probably be someone who looks, talks and acts in a way that they approve of.
America is too big and culturally diverse to fall into such simple classification Celery. You're basically saying that because these people share a skin color they all had exactly the same experiences regardless of socioeconomic status.
Can you see how that is flawed?
Minority groups exist. Actually, minority and majority groups exist -- lots and lots of different groups exist. When my two Mexican friends met each other, they spent a good long while talking about the shared experience of being Mexican. Does it make their life story's identical? Not by a longshot, but it does create a shared group identity which leads to similar experiences.
If two rich people with different skin color get together, they have the shared experience of being rich. When two people with the same skin color but different socioeconomic backgrounds get together, they have the shared experience of their skin color. People of the same religion, people from the same town, people of the same sexual orientation, etc. American society groups and classifies people, and belonging to those groups gives one a shared experience with other people in those groups. What's controversial about this?
The fact that you have the audacity to regard it as an absolute. I am certain that if you pick two mexican individuals at random that there is a good chance they will have no shared experiences to talk about. It really is an absurd notion.
It is racist because it assumes that all black(minorities) people share some kind of inherent difference from whites.
someone from Missouri would understand Missourians' concerns better than someone from Juneau.
To further my argument there are black people in both Missouri and Juneau and I'd be willing to bet they don't have much of a shared cultural experience despite the unifying power of BET and websites that mention black pride.
It trivializes all of the good in his policies and his stances. It's essentially stating that his skin color is the deciding characteristic of him as a candidate, and suggests that it's the defining one as well.
I mean, this is of course assuming that someone (Oprah or whoever else) is backing him because he's black.
Edit: or even placing both race and ideology on the same pedestal of value when picking a leader, reducing the latter's worth to diddly.
Well, there are many other factors besides his skin color, but for a certain segment of voters (read: black voters), I would go so far as to say it is the defining characteristic for their support.
There was also some huff where Chris Rock was at a political something-or-other for Barack Obama, and he cracked some joke about how "when history is made, you don't want to be the one who was backing that white lady."
Actually -- here's a youtube clip of it. He's a comedian and he's rather clearly joking, so I don't know exactly how literally we should interpret his words, but I mean it is an undeniable component of Obama's appeal to some voters.
It trivializes all of the good in his policies and his stances. It's essentially stating that his skin color is the deciding characteristic of him as a candidate, and suggests that it's the defining one as well.
I mean, this is of course assuming that someone (Oprah or whoever else) is backing him because he's black.
Edit: or even placing both race and ideology on the same pedestal of value when picking a leader, reducing the latter's worth to diddly.
Well, there are many other factors besides his skin color, but for a certain segment of voters (read: black voters), I would go so far as to say it is the defining characteristic for their support.
There was also some huff where Chris Rock was at a political something-or-other for Barack Obama, and he cracked some joke about how "when history is made, you don't want to be the one who was backing that white lady."
Actually -- here's a youtube clip of it. He's a comedian and he's rather clearly joking, so I don't know exactly how literally we should interpret his words, but I mean it is an undeniable component of Obama's appeal to some voters.
Right and I already stated that having skin color be a defining characteristic to support a candidate is culturally damaging.
Along with the idea that all black voters who vote for a black candidate did so simply because they were black.
The fact that you have the audacity to regard it as an absolute. I am certain that if you pick two mexican individuals at random that there is a good chance they will have no shared experiences to talk about. It really is an absurd notion.
Group identity is an absurd notion? So all that study, writing, energy, sociology, etc. exploring group identity is really horse shit, then? Millions of people pouring mountains of energy into nothing? I mean come on, man.
It's true -- you've caught me -- group identities don't provide absolutes. It does provide a tangible thing to many, many people, though, and you're daft for denying it.
Right and I already stated that having skin color be a defining characteristic to support a candidate is culturally damaging.
Along with the idea that all black voters who vote for a black candidate did so simply because they were black.
I think it's a pretty understandable reaction toward the very recent and sometimes ongoing cultural legacy of (1) black candidates being barred completely from politics based on their skin color alone along with (2) white candidates being given preference because of their skin color alone.
Is it perfect? No, but I don't really think it's too terribly foul, either.
Right and I already stated that having skin color be a defining characteristic to support a candidate is culturally damaging.
Along with the idea that all black voters who vote for a black candidate did so simply because they were black.
I think it's a pretty understandable reaction toward the very recent and sometimes ongoing cultural legacy of (1) black candidates being barred completely from politics based on their skin color alone along with (2) white candidates being given preference because of their skin color alone.
Is it perfect? No, but I don't really think it's too terribly foul, either.
So you're saying it would be logical to vote in an incompetent candidate as long as they aren't white? As revenge or a catalyst for social change? Seems silly to me.
I'm not saying that group identity should be discredit but it just doesn't totally encompass millions of vastly different people based on one simple, meaningless and ascribed criteria.
DasUberEdward on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
To further my argument there are black people in both Missouri and Juneau and I'd be willing to bet they don't have much of a shared cultural experience despite the unifying power of BET and websites that mention black pride.
You'd lose that bet unless one of them was a recent emigre from Africa.
Every black American over the age of 40 either was witness to, or felt the immediate repercussions of, the civil rights struggle. That's a shared experience. Black Americans of all social classes are routine victims of everyday racism, from being pulled over in the suburbs to watching people clutch their purses as they walk by. That's a shared experience. Studies on black social mobility show that their hold on the middle class is incredibly tenuous, and even well-off black families are typically only one generation removed from poverty - which is to say, in most cases they often know or are related to someone living in the reduced circumstances associated with the ghetto. (I've seen this first hand - my coworker at my old job, who wasn't rich by any means but had a stable income and a stable nuclear family, had to put up with a neverending stream of ne'er-do-well cousins and uncles crashing on his couch to hide from their girlfriends, debt collectors or the law.) That's a shared experience.
People in minority groups, whether ethnic, sexual, or otherwise, like to form communities; sometimes to keep their cultural or religious bearings, sometimes for protection, or sometimes just because people generally like to associate with people who are like them. It's the most natural thing in the world - or have you not noticed all the gamers and anime geeks that post here?
So you're saying it would be logical to vote in an incompetent candidate as long as they aren't white? As revenge or a catalyst for social change? Seems silly to me.
I'm not saying that group identity should be discredit but it just doesn't totally encompass millions of vastly different people based on one simple, meaningless and ascribed criteria.
I'm not saying it would be logical to vote for an incompetent candidate as long as they're <goup x>. I'm saying all things considered, when you have two comparable candidates (a la Clinton and Obama or Obama and anyone else he's running against, actually, but in particular in comparison Hilary because of the war chest thing) that it doesn't seem like the most atrocious thing ever that a black person would make the final determination to support Obama based on his skin color.
I mean, there's unpopular, yet credentialed, black figures as well, so obviously race isn't the only thing. There's also never been a black candidate as "electable" as Obama. It's not like there's a token black candidate soaking up the entire black vote every year. In the end, though, I don't see what's so controversial or upsetting about race being a thing that is considered by voters, in particular black voters.
And your ideas about group identity are just daft, man. Group identity exists. It's real, and people feel it. It does lead to shared experience. Not identical, but in many instances similar.
Hillary is (slightly) ahead of him in the polls, and she shares Oprah's gender (they're both shemales), so identity politics could not have been the deciding factor. What you are insisting is as ridiculous as if Obama was running against Powell, and someone asserted she chose Obama because he's black.
Furthermore, Obama didn't have the same experience growing up as most American Black, as he was in white-minority countries, and the parent he grew up with most was (I believe) white, though he has had to get used to Black politics (though the Chicago system seems based upon African-American culture, right down to basketball being the connection game).
Oprah will bring two advantages:
1) People will want to get the best seats, for which you must volunteer for the campaign or, if you haven't caucused before, take a caucus course. This will be a huge boon for a candidate who, until recently, had to campaign out of his campaign organizer's trunk (couldn't afford an Iowa office or staff).
2) People will want to hear Oprah, who speaks before him, and it's rude to leave while there's someone speaking, especially if it's his event. This means they will have to listen to the most charismatic candidate in the race.
To further my argument there are black people in both Missouri and Juneau and I'd be willing to bet they don't have much of a shared cultural experience despite the unifying power of BET and websites that mention black pride.
You'd lose that bet unless one of them was a recent emigre from Africa.
Every black American over the age of 40 either was witness to, or felt the immediate repercussions of, the civil rights struggle. That's a shared experience. Black Americans of all social classes are routine victims of everyday racism, from being pulled over in the suburbs to watching people clutch their purses as they walk by. That's a shared experience. Studies on black social mobility show that their hold on the middle class is incredibly tenuous, and even well-off black families are typically only one generation removed from poverty - which is to say, in most cases they often know or are related to someone living in the reduced circumstances associated with the ghetto. (I've seen this first hand - my coworker at my old job, who wasn't rich by any means but had a stable income and a stable nuclear family, had to put up with a neverending stream of ne'er-do-well cousins and uncles crashing on his couch to hide from their girlfriends, debt collectors or the law.) That's a shared experience.
People in minority groups, whether ethnic, sexual, or otherwise, like to form communities; sometimes to keep their cultural or religious bearings, sometimes for protection, or sometimes just because people generally like to associate with people who are like them. It's the most natural thing in the world - or have you not noticed all the gamers and anime geeks that post here?
Right and I already stated that having skin color be a defining characteristic to support a candidate is culturally damaging.
Along with the idea that all black voters who vote for a black candidate did so simply because they were black.
I think it's a pretty understandable reaction toward the very recent and sometimes ongoing cultural legacy of (1) black candidates being barred completely from politics based on their skin color alone along with (2) white candidates being given preference because of their skin color alone.
Is it perfect? No, but I don't really think it's too terribly foul, either.
So you're saying it would be logical to vote in an incompetent candidate as long as they aren't white? As revenge or a catalyst for social change? Seems silly to me.
I'm not saying that group identity should be discredit but it just doesn't totally encompass millions of vastly different people based on one simple, meaningless and ascribed criteria.
holy crap. this is pretty obtuse, man. you're creating a pretty obvious strawman here.
there is something to be said for the experiences of a group who share similar racial/physical characteristics. it is a good bet that most people of similar skin color, at least in the U.S. anyways, have experienced some common things. look at the sad, storied history of discrimination faced by lots of racial AND ethnic groups (and by that i mean blacks, asians, arabs, south asians, Jews, Italians, Germans, Polacks, etc.) quite frankly, to say or believe otherwise is blatantly ignoring centuries of human history.
more to the point, if Oprah's endorsement was only about race, she would have backed Jesse Jackson, or Al Sharpton, or even Alan Keyes. i don't think for a second race had nothing to do with her endorsement; of course it did. but i'm willing to bet that she has backed him for other reasons.
She's voting for him because she thinks he is the right candidate, but she's openly endorsing him because he's black and stands a chance of winning (which she wants to boost). That's how I see it.
Posts
Yes, even this is slightly racist if you're saying the only reason she endorsed Obama is for his skin color.
What if Obama had been a progressive presidential blah blah blah who was a white woman? Do you think Oprah would have endorsed him?
Because it sounds racist to a lot of people, and society is hardwired to react strongly to any sign of racism, no matter how remote. Whether it is racist or not is a different question.
edit: also, what fuzzy said.
Umm because racism is a pretty big deal and if you're going to throw around accusations like "The darkies are all going to just vote for each other every time!" then you'd better come up with some more substantial evidence than "but...they're both black!"
And sometimes the easiest explanation is the easiest for a reason, man.
I don't think anyone here is arguing against it being a reason, or even a major one. You started the thread saying "because he's black", not "partly" or "mainly" because he's black. Then you said this:
As for why endorse a presidential candidate now? Maybe she, like most other Americans, are starting to realize just how much the GOP has fucked over our country, and she's now extra-motivated to see someone topple the GOP throne. Who knows.
There were a lot of white celebrities who seemed fairly politically neutral about politics, only to go gung-ho for GWB in 2004 over the Iraq War, which they saw as "OMG, the most pressing issue ever!" But you didn't see anyone accusing them of only supporting Bush because he was white.
Well technically, there are a lot of white people in this country who do only vote for whites. Have you ever voted for a non-white president? Does that make you a racist?
It is racist because it assumes that all black(minorities) people share some kind of inherent difference from whites. You are giving your vote to someone based not on ideology or policies, but instead because they share a PHYSICAL feature which has no bearing on their ability to lead the country.
Christians voting for Christian candidates is not wrong because they share a common ideological background, I do not choose to vote as such, but it is important to note the difference between a physical feature vs. a subscribed belief.
It really isn't a big deal, but don't pretend that purporting the idea that blacks and whites are inherently different isn't a big deal.
Only, as in that's the only reason why they're voting for them. I haven't voted for a black person because there have been none before Obama who have interested me as a candidate, not because they happen to be black or white.
Similarly, I've never voted for someone only because they're Christian. Or only because they're attractive. Or only because of any one (and in this case, superficial) issue...
If you want me to google up some links of people talking about the black experience, or black unity, or black pride, or group identity or whatever the fuck else, I can do that, but I thought shared minority group experience was a pretty uncontroversial thing.
I mean, this is of course assuming that someone (Oprah or whoever else) is backing him because he's black.
Edit: or even placing both race and ideology on the same pedestal of value when picking a leader, reducing the latter's worth to diddly.
America is too big and culturally diverse to fall into such simple classification Celery. You're basically saying that because these people share a skin color they all had exactly the same experiences regardless of socioeconomic status.
Can you see how that is flawed?
:P He's the first truly electable black candidate, and (of course) he's liberal, and kinda despise everyone who stands a chance of beating him. I'd be crazy not to vote for him.
I just disproved your point. Just because they exist doesn't mean that all blacks subscribe to the ideology.
Oh and I made an edit up there.
If two rich people with different skin color get together, they have the shared experience of being rich. When two people with the same skin color but different socioeconomic backgrounds get together, they have the shared experience of their skin color. People of the same religion, people from the same town, people of the same sexual orientation, etc. American society groups and classifies people, and belonging to those groups gives one a shared experience with other people in those groups. What's controversial about this?
No one's saying that, though. He's saying that she might repose a lot of hope in Obama because of a shared cultural history. In no other context is it racist or even controversial to suggest that, all other things being equal, someone from Missouri would understand Missourians' concerns better than someone from Juneau.
Like everyone, Oprah has a set of political priorities and she feels that he can best advance those. The millionaires in my neighborhood also have a set of priorities and will vote for the guy that they feel can best advance those, and it will probably be someone who looks, talks and acts in a way that they approve of.
The fact that you have the audacity to regard it as an absolute. I am certain that if you pick two mexican individuals at random that there is a good chance they will have no shared experiences to talk about. It really is an absurd notion.
There was also some huff where Chris Rock was at a political something-or-other for Barack Obama, and he cracked some joke about how "when history is made, you don't want to be the one who was backing that white lady."
Actually -- here's a youtube clip of it. He's a comedian and he's rather clearly joking, so I don't know exactly how literally we should interpret his words, but I mean it is an undeniable component of Obama's appeal to some voters.
Along with the idea that all black voters who vote for a black candidate did so simply because they were black.
It's true -- you've caught me -- group identities don't provide absolutes. It does provide a tangible thing to many, many people, though, and you're daft for denying it.
Is it perfect? No, but I don't really think it's too terribly foul, either.
So you're saying it would be logical to vote in an incompetent candidate as long as they aren't white? As revenge or a catalyst for social change? Seems silly to me.
I'm not saying that group identity should be discredit but it just doesn't totally encompass millions of vastly different people based on one simple, meaningless and ascribed criteria.
You'd lose that bet unless one of them was a recent emigre from Africa.
Every black American over the age of 40 either was witness to, or felt the immediate repercussions of, the civil rights struggle. That's a shared experience. Black Americans of all social classes are routine victims of everyday racism, from being pulled over in the suburbs to watching people clutch their purses as they walk by. That's a shared experience. Studies on black social mobility show that their hold on the middle class is incredibly tenuous, and even well-off black families are typically only one generation removed from poverty - which is to say, in most cases they often know or are related to someone living in the reduced circumstances associated with the ghetto. (I've seen this first hand - my coworker at my old job, who wasn't rich by any means but had a stable income and a stable nuclear family, had to put up with a neverending stream of ne'er-do-well cousins and uncles crashing on his couch to hide from their girlfriends, debt collectors or the law.) That's a shared experience.
People in minority groups, whether ethnic, sexual, or otherwise, like to form communities; sometimes to keep their cultural or religious bearings, sometimes for protection, or sometimes just because people generally like to associate with people who are like them. It's the most natural thing in the world - or have you not noticed all the gamers and anime geeks that post here?
Finally, you're blatantly ignoring the cold hard demographic facts of the matter in favor of bizzaro-world hypotheticals. The vast majority of black Americans are urban, poorer on average than whites, and live in the South. Shared experience ahoy!
I mean, there's unpopular, yet credentialed, black figures as well, so obviously race isn't the only thing. There's also never been a black candidate as "electable" as Obama. It's not like there's a token black candidate soaking up the entire black vote every year. In the end, though, I don't see what's so controversial or upsetting about race being a thing that is considered by voters, in particular black voters.
And your ideas about group identity are just daft, man. Group identity exists. It's real, and people feel it. It does lead to shared experience. Not identical, but in many instances similar.
Furthermore, Obama didn't have the same experience growing up as most American Black, as he was in white-minority countries, and the parent he grew up with most was (I believe) white, though he has had to get used to Black politics (though the Chicago system seems based upon African-American culture, right down to basketball being the connection game).
Oprah will bring two advantages:
1) People will want to get the best seats, for which you must volunteer for the campaign or, if you haven't caucused before, take a caucus course. This will be a huge boon for a candidate who, until recently, had to campaign out of his campaign organizer's trunk (couldn't afford an Iowa office or staff).
2) People will want to hear Oprah, who speaks before him, and it's rude to leave while there's someone speaking, especially if it's his event. This means they will have to listen to the most charismatic candidate in the race.
holy crap. this is pretty obtuse, man. you're creating a pretty obvious strawman here.
there is something to be said for the experiences of a group who share similar racial/physical characteristics. it is a good bet that most people of similar skin color, at least in the U.S. anyways, have experienced some common things. look at the sad, storied history of discrimination faced by lots of racial AND ethnic groups (and by that i mean blacks, asians, arabs, south asians, Jews, Italians, Germans, Polacks, etc.) quite frankly, to say or believe otherwise is blatantly ignoring centuries of human history.
more to the point, if Oprah's endorsement was only about race, she would have backed Jesse Jackson, or Al Sharpton, or even Alan Keyes. i don't think for a second race had nothing to do with her endorsement; of course it did. but i'm willing to bet that she has backed him for other reasons.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562