badaxemoo said:http://www.redroom.com/blog/tim-wise/this-your-nation-white-privilege-updated
Obama's election is a watershed event in race relations in the U.S., but let's not pretend that someone waived a magic wand and made racism disappear.
badaxemoo said:http://www.redroom.com/blog/tim-wise/this-your-nation-white-privilege-updated
Obama's election is a watershed event in race relations in the U.S., but let's not pretend that someone waived a magic wand and made racism disappear.
you really think so?alice said:badaxemoo said:http://www.redroom.com/blog/tim-wise/this-your-nation-white-privilege-updated
Obama's election is a watershed event in race relations in the U.S., but let's not pretend that someone waived a magic wand and made racism disappear.
Good article...
Alice
Sandhusker said:badaxemoo said:http://www.redroom.com/blog/tim-wise/this-your-nation-white-privilege-updated
Obama's election is a watershed event in race relations in the U.S., but let's not pretend that someone waived a magic wand and made racism disappear.
His race was the main reason he was nominated and then elected. 96% of one racial demographic voted for him. Of course racism is alive and well - it's just not the conventional racism of old.
Yanuck said:Are you agreeing with the guy that wrote that or saying his piece was racist?
badaxemoo said:Sandhusker said:badaxemoo said:http://www.redroom.com/blog/tim-wise/this-your-nation-white-privilege-updated
Obama's election is a watershed event in race relations in the U.S., but let's not pretend that someone waived a magic wand and made racism disappear.
His race was the main reason he was nominated and then elected. 96% of one racial demographic voted for him. Of course racism is alive and well - it's just not the conventional racism of old.
Seeing how it's not out of the ordinary for over 90% of blacks to vote Democratic anyway, I don't see how this is that significant.
Do you think that if J.C. Watts had run for President, he would have gotten 96% of the black vote?
I don't.
Sandhusker said:Yes, I do. Experience wasn't a consideration as Obama has none. Character wasn't a consideration as Obama's is poor. Honesty wasn't a consideration as Obama lies more than Hillary. Record wasn't important as that topic was taboo. His promise of "change" was so vague that it was meaningless. What other reason was there other than to get a brother in the White House?
alacowman said:it would'nt matter if pee wee herman., had been the democratic pick. he would have gotten it. bush left such a bad taste on people we will be lucky too see a republican win in years too come..folks wanted bush out at any cost . all the dems had too do is dress him up, and get him too hollar change
How would that have given him a shot? McCain is nothing but a liberal himself - choosing a moderate instead of Palin would have further alienated the conservatives. Is it "pandering" to try to appeal to the party's real base?badaxemoo said:Imagine if McCain had run as himself and picked a moderate VP instead of pandering to the more extreme wings of the Republican Party.
He might have had a shot.
Sandhusker said:badaxemoo said:http://www.redroom.com/blog/tim-wise/this-your-nation-white-privilege-updated
Obama's election is a watershed event in race relations in the U.S., but let's not pretend that someone waived a magic wand and made racism disappear.
His race was the main reason he was nominated and then elected. 96% of one racial demographic voted for him. Of course racism is alive and well - it's just not the conventional racism of old.
badaxemoo said:Sandhusker said:Yes, I do. Experience wasn't a consideration as Obama has none. Character wasn't a consideration as Obama's is poor. Honesty wasn't a consideration as Obama lies more than Hillary. Record wasn't important as that topic was taboo. His promise of "change" was so vague that it was meaningless. What other reason was there other than to get a brother in the White House?
While I disagree with nearly everything you said, I'm going to put those points aside for the moment because you leave out the primary reason to vote for any candidate:
Policy.
Obama will probably adhere to a fairly conventional Democratic set of politicies. McCain would have likely followed a fairly conventional Republican set of policies.
That is why there are Democratic and Republican voters, isn't it?
Republicans used to be the party of civil rights and the Democrats were the party of white supremacy and guess who African-Americans voted for during that period?
It's really no surprise that now that the Democrats are the more inclusive party, that blacks would vote overwhelmingly for a Democratic candidate now, would it?
badaxemoo said:http://www.redroom.com/blog/tim-wise/this-your-nation-white-privilege-updated
Obama's election is a watershed event in race relations in the U.S., but let's not pretend that someone waived a magic wand and made racism disappear.
Sandhusker said:If they voted for his policy, they were just guessing as to what that policy would be, because all he campaigned on was an overused buzzword.
VanC said:As long as there are races, there will be racism. As long as whites are in the majority, there will be white privilege. However, I don't really think another old, tired, worn out hit piece on Palin, Bush and McCain is the best way to get this point across. You can de better.
As for Mr. Wise, I've read some of his stuff and I've seen him on a couple of talk shows. He's well spoken and he writes well, even if I don't always agree with him. But the fact is he makes a fortune peddling this stuff. Is that just a by product of someone who truly cares and wants to right wrongs, or is he just another race hustler? Damned if I know.