If I hear or read about one more person who says he or she was crying when it became clear Obama won the election or when they cast their vote, I'm going to vomit. Really? You actually cried? Can you please explain why?
Nothing "historic" happened in this election. We have an election for President every 4 years. Oh, okay, a half-black man was elected this time. I suppose that's historic but why is no one talking about how shameful it is that this is even an issue? The U.S. has nothing to be proud of. We should instead be embarassed that only in the 21st century have we finally realized that a half black, who acts white enough for us all to be confortable with him, can be President. Jesse Jackson never had a chance and still wouldn't.
As for historic, maybe we can reserve that judgement until we see what actually gets accomplished? Having someone in office who has a black parent may mean something but I don't know what. It doesn't signal the end of racism in this country. Not when well over 90% of black voters voted for Obama. Either they are way smarter than the rest of us or many of them voted purely on race. How exactly does that signal the end of racism?
Oh, I forgot, there's going to be change and hope. Okay. Sure. If anyone thinks for one minute that the Warren Buffet's of this country are going to let Obama significantly increase capital gains taxes, you are out of your mind. Now that he's elected, some people who are wealthier, and perhaps even wiser, than he is are going to pull him aside and say, "Congratulations Barack. We're thrilled for you. Now, about some of those things you said during the campaign. If you do them, this country is going to fall off a cliff and we're going to lose billions. Um, we're not going to let that happen. Understand?"
Sure, Obama will pass through some of what he wants to do. But the aristocracy of this country will only allow "change" that will not significantly undermine their power or diminish their bank accounts. Anyone who thinks otherwise may actually be delusional.
I've said this before but here's my prediction: I'm a single guy with a good salary and no dependents. Four years from now, my real wages will have lost more ground against CEO pay. I will be paying significantly more for electricity, gas, food, health care, and television. My taxes will increase. My job will be no more secure than it is today. Ohio will not see a return of good-paying manufacturing jobs. Cleveland will continue to lose population and tax base and the infrastructure will continue to deteriorate. Some American troops will still be dying in Iraq or Afghanistan. We will have at least 50 million citizens without health insurance. Our students will still be getting their asses kicked by students from every other industrialized country. Poor people in the inner city will still be poor and living in the inner city. Adult onset diabetes will continue to be a rampant and unsolved problem as the obesity rate nears 50%.
Perhaps there is a reason to cry as an American citizen but I don't think it's because we've elected Barack Obama.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
"I suppose that's historic but why is no one talking about how shameful it is that this is even an issue?"
Thank you thank you thank you thank you THANK YOU.
You're right, Jesse Jackson probably would never be electable. But Andrew Young and Colin Powell would have been. So might Condelezza Rice but let's not conjure that.
BTW, I didn't get into full-blown weeping but I did get a bit misty eyed. Maybe I was just glad it was over, maybe it was the feeling I got when a really smart, intuitive confident person stood there at the end of the day, maybe it's because I've been reading his autobiography and could see that person who went through all those things, I don't know. It was a moment I will never forget, though.
What I wish I could forget or overlook is the stuff that is coming out now about the black vote. Jesus Christmas, it makes me want to lay in traffic. I've never been so insulted or disgusted by the kinds of assumptions flying around. OF COURSE PEOPLE VOTED PURELY ON RACE. Do you honestly think for one minute that people who kept Mississippi, Kentucky, Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Tennessee and every other Southern state Red weren't voting against a black man? So why is it that white folks get their panties in a bunch when black folks vote for a black man? Doesn't anyone else think that sounds pretty ridiculous? As complex as this election is and as complex as the individual voter is, there is still no question that Republicans were handed a referendum. Barack Obama won the presidency, but there was not a single Republican left standing in New England alone. And the Senate turned over. That's not about Barack Obama. That's about George Bush.
Mando - I think you make a few good points here. Let me first say that while I'm not sure either candidate will be able to cure the ills of our society, my preference was for Obama. In that regard, I'm happy he won. However, there are two things I think about:
I probably come across as pretty bland sometimes to some people. This is because I live my life never getting too far up or too far down. People may say I miss out on the real highs of life. Perhaps. But I also rarely sink into the real lows. With this election, I've seen a lot of people invest so much in these candidates that I think it's unhealthy. Every election we seem to be more polarized. Those on the losing side are increasingly bitter and those on the winning side demonstrate and elation about expectations that cannot possibly be met. I think this is unhealthy. Obama may be a good man. He may turn out to be a good President. But he is not the savior his supporters have been painting him as. One man cannot do what people expect him to do. The sad thing about this election is that people talk about hope and change but I still hear most people talking about what they expect Obama to do rather than what they can do for themselves.
Point #2 - I think there are a couple reasons white people got their panties in a bunch. For me, one of those reasons is intellectual dishonesty. I know most blacks voted based on race. You know it. So why do so many blacks keep denying it? They keep trying to say it was about issues and Obama's proposed policies. Bullshit. It was race pure and simple so at least be honest and admit it. As a white person, I freely admit that many whites did not for Obama because he's black. I have no problem admitting that there's racism in the white community. Why can't blacks acknowledge this as well? Instead, most of the ones I've heard interviewed would have us believe that their decision was based on some careful deliberation of the issues. Bullshit.
And closely related is the notion that I think Jim was trying to get to on Facebook. If the majority of blacks voted for Obama based on race, and we all seem to agree that's true, then how come no one is calling it what it is - racism? Basically, voting for President is like hiring someone for a job. If I ran a company where I blatantly hired a white person because he was white, there is no doubt I'd be tagged a racist and likely sued. So when black Americans engage in behavior that is patently racist, why is it never called racist in the media or by anyone else? We just push it under the rug, maybe because of white guilt or some other politically correct crap. But I think there are some whites who feel that true equality means that if a behavior is wrong for one race, it's wrong for all. People can talk about the "white majority" but in this election only 36% of voters were white males, the so-called power elite. That's fine, it's a mixed country. But if whites all over the country were celebrating another white man victory and opening saying on TV and radio that the main reason they were happy is because the candidate who won was white, blacks would be rioting in the streets. They are now essentially doing the same thing and no one is saying a word about it. That's not an equal society. That's one side being able to engage in tacitly sanctioned racism.
Maybe where I am getting hung up is the use of the term, "racism," which is at its core the belief that genetics determine human abilities, and that based on that, certain ethnic groups are inferior to others. Who came up with this notion? White European imperialists who used it to colonize anything they could. They used an array of traits to justify human cargo, take over countries and cultures, and run roughshod over America's prairies.
Now, if you want to say that some of the race-based voting is discriminatory, that I would more readily accept. But I will also tell you that I've talked to Black republican business owners who had not yet made up their minds quite late in the game. So to me, this notion and sentiment aligning Obama simply with the black vote is extraordinarily dismissive. If America is finally going to have this discussion, it has to really be open to viewing things from a vast multitude of angles and accept the challenges to our conventional thinking that the complexity of this particular election brought to the fore.
Obviously this isn't something I take lightly or have any kind of knee-jerk reaction to. I confront the issue of race every single day. Corporations are desperate to fill their leadership ranks with people of color. But talented people of color are constantly challenged by these same organizations to prove themselves in ways that white candidates never are, and I know this because I've watched clients, even nonprofit clients, put black candidates through paces that they don't even consider for white applicants. I'm talking psychological profiling on top of the "Really? This guy has a Ph.D.?" kinds of comments that people say. So it's not like my concern for where this conversation is headed is just me being a pain in the ass. I have folks in my own family who circulated some of the most racist pre-election tripe I have ever seen, and it was that kind of gut-wrenchingly fear-inspiring stuff that is totally off-base but that makes sure that real racism stays alive.
I think where this discussion goes off track is that the examples being used are just not realistic. White males have not been dominated by another race. White Anglo populations were not threatened with extinction during World War II. Considering that Black Americans didn't even have the right to vote until not very long ago, that the only reason they got to this country at all was because white people BARTERED FOR THEM like they were rum or whale oil and then brought whoever made it alive (those who didn't die or jump overboard off the slave ships) to these shores to build up the white sharecropper wealth of the South, that after all the so-called civil rights advances we can still sit back and say "this group behaved homogenously," -- well, it just blows my mind.
Also, not to belabor the point, but all over the country we are seeing affirmative action policies and laws being overturned. It's interesting to watch. Affirmative action really got its start back in 1941, when Roosevelt had to issue an executive order to get defense plants to hire black men (see http://www.pbs.org/fmc/timeline/eexec8802.htm). Even in times of desperate need we had to legislate decision making behavior. So I’m not convinced that we’re ready to do without affirmative action types of legislation, but I'm not sure it's working. Maybe the idea behind it needs to be recalibrated more to socio-economic status. Still it is very complex. There is always the potential for unintended consequences – what happens to the all-girls precollegiate math camp, for example? Can ethnic groups organize on campus? How do we address inequities of any kind without reverting to the real deficits that occurred before we created so-called “protected class” groups beginning with FDR’s EO8802? It’s just such a slippery slope. Just the fact that we measure what a fair shot amounts to using the white male as a baseline or "standard" is kind of inherently racist.
Incidentally, while snooping around on the subject, I found this pre-election article hinting at Obama’s views of affirmative action to be interesting and worth a look: http://www.mlive.com/us-politics/index.ssf/2008/11/affirmative_action_change_unde.html.
Shutting up now, for real.
Well, I think we can parse words but I'm not sure that's helpful. Some people will say that blacks can be prejudiced but they can't be racists because racism implies that you have the power to hold someone down or negatively affect their life. I'm not sure I buy that distinction. Nonetheless, I think that anytime someones skin color is the defining factor as to how that person is treated, that's racism.
I understand a lot of what you're saying and I agree with much of it but, in my opinion, I think you're more of an optimist than I am. First of all, racism was by no means created by "white imperialists." That's simply incorrect. There is evidence of slave ownership in Africa, South America, and the fertile crescent long before and whites explored or exploited these areas. In Africa, variations in skin tone and body adornment have long been causes of hatred and genocide. Africans were selling each other before white slave traders ever got there.
I also disgree with your point about saying "this group behaved homogenously." Had 60% or 65% of black voters gone for Obama I would agree. But in many precincts it was UNANIMOUS, at least as reported by NPR. In Ohio as a state it was so close to unanimous that they basically called in that. In New York is was somewhere around 98%. If this is not behaving homogenously, I don't know what is.
Look, perhaps we got off point here. You and I are not going to settle thousands of years of racism. It never, ever will leave human society. Never. I wish it would but it won't. Why? Because there will always be somewhere where resources will be scarce or unequally distributed. And wherever there are inequities, humans revert to ingroup and outgroup behavior. Form an evolutionary standpoint, this generally serves us well but sometimes it goes awry. I would argue that at one point in the distant past, racism was probably adaptive. But it's outlived it's usefulness. So has our fear of spiders but many of us still can't shake it.
My point is simply that if people are going to act in ways that are racist, whether they are white or black, they should simply admit that they are doing it. And the media shouldn't punish one group and give the other a pass. Now, you may not see the overwhelming vote of black Americans for Obama as racist. There you and I disagree because for many of these people the vote was predominantly about his skin color and I don't know what else to call that. All I know is that if I had voted for McCain and I said I voted for him because he's white, I would be branded a racist. I just don't see why it's not the same for blacks, at least those who obviously cast their vote for that reason.
Post a Comment