Obama Is No 'Post-Racial' Candidate
By WARD CONNERLY
June 13, 2008; Page A15
With all my heart – and for the betterment of my country – I desperately wanted to believe that Sen. Barack Obama was not one of the same tired voices who peddle arguments about "institutional racism."
I have heard him say that America is not about "black and white." I was inspired when his supporters chanted at his rally on the night of his victory in South Carolina that "race doesn't matter." I thought his March 18 speech about race had the potential to become a defining moment in our endless struggle to confront and conquer this issue. I was encouraged by his perceptive acknowledgment that affirmative action breeds resentment and hostility. As millions of whites cast their votes for him in predominantly white states, I held out hope that, perhaps, he truly was a transformative leader.
But a June 10 article in USA Today by DeWayne Wickham dashed my hopes for Mr. Obama.
Mr. Wickham, who had interviewed the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, wrote that "Obama believes America can keep its promise to women and blacks without dashing the hopes of working-class whites. He doesn't think opportunity guarantees made to one group must come at the expense of another." Then he went on to quote Obama campaign spokeswoman Candice Toliver, who said that "Senator Obama believes in a country in which opportunity is available to all Americans, regardless of race, gender or economic status. That's why he opposes these ballot initiatives, which would roll back opportunity for millions of Americans and cripple efforts to break down historic barriers to the progress of qualified women and minorities."
Translation: Mr. Obama supports race preferences.
As many readers will know, I am intimately involved in the effort to enact race-neutral ballot initiatives around the country (right now in Arizona, Colorado and Nebraska). I find it difficult to understand how the senator can "strongly oppose" any initiative that does precisely what he professes to believe and is consistent with the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
This is the language of the initiatives I am now sponsoring: "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin, in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting."
The rationale for using race preferences to "eliminate historic barriers," upon which Mr. Obama relies as his primary justification, has been rejected consistently by the Supreme Court since the Bakke decision in 1978. Only the pursuit of "diversity" by higher education meets the strict constitutional test for race preferences. As a lawyer, I am sure that Mr. Obama must know this.
He must also know that blacks and whites are not the only racial groups in America. Every year there are more than 48,000 applicants for one of the 4,500 seats at the University of California campus at Berkeley. Before the passage of the initiative in that state to outlaw race preferences, thousands of Asian students were denied admission so that a greater number of "underrepresented minorities" could be admitted.
Similar circumstances exist across the nation, because college admissions, public jobs and government contracts are the ultimate "zero-sum" game, and race and gender should not be the determining factors in picking winners and losers. It simply stretches credulity to argue that an "opportunity" given to one, on the basis of race, is not discrimination against another for the same reason.
The issue that troubled many Americans about the widely publicized sermons of Rev. Jeremiah Wright was his view that America is an "institutionally racist" society. This view lies at the heart of the defense advocates of race preferences make for "affirmative action." It is also at the core of Black Liberation Theology.
By supporting race preferences, Mr. Obama is unmistakably attaching himself to despicable ideas like Rev. Wright's. And, if he believes in those precepts, how does he reconcile his impressive political success and that of Mrs. Clinton with this perspective? Thirty-six million Americans didn't vote for the two of them because the majority of the American people are racist and sexist.
If Mr. Obama wants to be the candidate of "change," why doesn't he change the idiotic racial classification system that burdens millions of Americans? Why doesn't he call attention to the barbaric "one-drop" (of hereditary blood) rule that continues to haunt our nation, and which drives him to identify with the "black community" at the expense of his white ancestry? If he wants to unite the American people, how does he propose to do that by asking some Americans to accept preferential treatment for others and discrimination against themselves?
How does Mr. Obama expect America to compete with China and India when we abandon the principle of individual merit and elevate skin color and sex above performance?
Soothing rhetoric about uniting our nation against a backdrop of American flags isn't sufficient to accomplish that objective. Specific policies like affirmative action – and where candidates stand on them – are where the rubber meets the road.
If either Barack Obama or John McCain want to be a truly "post-racial president," then it is essential that they support efforts to place our nation on a path to guarantee equal treatment under the law for all Americans. That means preferential treatment for none on the basis of their race, ethnic background, skin color or sex.
Mr. Connerly is chairman of the American Civil Rights Coalition and author of "Creating Equal" (Encounter, 2000).
Shortly after Hillary Rodham Clinton suspended her presidential campaign and urged her supporters — especially women — to embrace Barack Obama's White House bid, the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee gave them another reason to rally to his side.
In response to a question I put to him a day earlier, Obama answered that he opposes efforts to pass constitutional amendments this year in Arizona, Colorado and Nebraska to ban affirmative action in state contracting and college admissions.
"Sen. Obama believes in a country in which opportunity is available to all Americans, regardless of their race, gender or economic status. That's why he opposes these ballot initiatives, which would roll back opportunity for millions of Americans and cripple efforts to break down historic barriers to the progress of qualified women and minorities," Candice Tolliver, an Obama campaign spokesperson, told me.
White women and blacks are the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action programs.
Courageous action
While Obama has long been on record in support of affirmative action, speaking out against the effort by Ward Connerly, a black California businessman who spearheaded successful campaigns to ban it in California, Michigan and Washington, is an act of political courage.
It comes at a time when Obama is trying to win over working-class whites, many of whom believe affirmative action gains by women and blacks come at their expense. Nothing reflects Obama's call for a departure from the old political thinking more than his belief that he can address the concerns of disaffected whites without abandoning the interests of minorities and women —the Democrats' core constituencies.
Race has long been a troublesome issue in U.S. politics. But as far back as July, Obama has talked about finding creative ways to bring together people who often have been on opposite ends of this nation's racial schism. During an interview 11 months ago, I asked him how he would overcome resistance to funding for anti-poverty programs if he were elected president.
Two-pronged approach
"I don't think you can do it in isolation. You can't solve the problem of poverty if you're not speaking to the larger anxieties that working-class families feel as well," he said. Translation: In order to win widespread support for increased aid to blacks, who are disproportionately poor, he must also make a parallel effort to remedy some of the gnawing problems of middle-class whites.
Instead of viewing the two groups as competing forces, Obama's strategy is to focus on what links them. Not surprisingly, a day after he went to Virginia — which hasn't gone Democratic in a presidential election since 1964 — to launch his general election campaign, Obama expressed strong opposition to the anti-affirmative action initiatives. His action couldn't come at a better time. Civil rights organizations are struggling to raise money to combat Connerly's campaign, which they managed to derail in Missouri and Oklahoma, where supporters failed to get enough signatures to get the issue on the ballot.
While the initiative has been put on the ballot in Colorado, neither Arizona nor Nebraska has yet to get enough signatures to submit these constitutional amendments to voters in November.They both face early July deadlines.
By opposing this effort at the same time that he's reaching out to working-class whites, Obama is forging a strategy that could deal a fatal blow to the movement Connerly has led for more than a decade. That would be a good thing.
Obama believes America can keep its promise to women and blacks without dashing the hopes of working-class whites. He doesn't think opportunity guarantees made to one group must come at the expense of another. His is admittedly a new political vision, one that may well propel him into the White House —and help this nation fully live up to its promise.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 394 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Sun 15 Jun 2008 05:23 Post subject:
Just like Obama's alleged disdain for mixed people who identify as something other than "black," once again, we're judging this man because we think that he's not going to do something... as if any other candidate WILL.
For example, the quote from Dreams of My Father, and how Other says that it's another reason not to vote for him. While this same thought was probably going on in the heads of many, no one stopped to realize that in all probability, neither Clinton nor McCain was going to give us that little box to check on federal forms either.
So he's not post-racial - who cares? Were ANY of the presidents up to and including George W. Bush "post-racial"? Is McCain "post-racial"? Would Clinton have been "post-racial"?
Bottom-line - it's pure idiocy to say, "Obama's not post-racial, I'm voting for McCain." It doesn't make sense to blackball a particular candidate for lacking a desired attribute that the other equally lacks.
Barack Obama's Rise Has Americans Debating Whether Affirmative Action Has Run Its Course
By JONATHAN KAUFMAN
June 14, 2008; Page A1
WARREN, Mich. -- Stan Sheyn, a white student who attends community college in this working-class Detroit suburb, supports Barack Obama for president. But he has no time for what he calls "double standards and propagation of victim mentality."
"The fact that a black man can run for the position of the President of the United States of America only corroborates that there is enough opportunity and equality for great things like that to happen," he says. "And that there is no need to create special advantages for any demographic group."
Electra Fulbright, a black small-business consultant in prosperous Southfield, Mich., couldn't disagree more.
"Obama's privileges and his accomplishments are minute compared to the black population at large," says Ms. Fulbright, who plans to vote for Sen. Obama. "When we talk about Obama, we are not talking about the average black American. There is injustice in this country, and until we correct it, we need affirmative action."
Few issues have been as incendiary in the workplace and on college campuses as affirmative action -- in large part because so many blacks and whites have been personally affected by affirmative action, in ways both good and bad.
Now, Sen. Obama's rise is prompting some whites to ask -- and some blacks to fear -- the question: Does America still need affirmative action, given that an African-American has made it to the top of American politics?
The question has been asked before, as other blacks have risen to high positions. But Sen. Obama's swift ascent to the verge of the presidency may have created a turning point in the debate.
The issue of affirmative action is likely to dog Sen. Obama on the campaign trail as he seeks to win over white blue-collar voters in battleground states like Michigan. For many of these voters, affirmative action has been divisive since the 1970s. Ward Connerly, a prominent affirmative-action opponent, is seeking to place anti-affirmative action referendums on the ballot in Arizona, Nebraska and Colorado. Voters would be asked to ban "preferential treatment" of women and minorities in state university admissions, the filling of state-funded jobs and awarding of state contracts.
Favoring the Middle Class
White anger over affirmative action has diminished as the Supreme Court has systematically narrowed the scope of programs in colleges and the workplace. Still, the gap between black and white opinion remains wide.
More than half of blacks -- 57% -- say the country should make "every effort to improve the position of blacks and minorities, even if it means giving preferential treatment," according to a poll conducted last year by the Pew Research Center, a non-partisan Washington think tank that studies social attitudes. Just 27% of whites agree with that view. The same poll shows that nearly half of whites -- 48% -- believe the U.S. has "gone too far in pushing equal rights in this country." Far fewer African Americans -- 27% -- agree.
Opinions about affirmative action vary depending on how researchers word their questions; support tends to grow, for example, when the question describes the programs in more detail. But the Gallup polling firm says that regardless of the wording, all of its surveys on affirmative action show blacks overwhelmingly support it, while whites tend to be much more divided.
Sen. Obama's success has also stirred an uncomfortable debate within the black community over who has reaped the gains of affirmative action. Some argue the policies skew toward middle-class blacks instead of poor blacks, and have favored too many individuals like Sen. Obama -- people with a biracial background or the children of African and Caribbean immigrants, as opposed to blacks born in the U.S.
In a 2000 interview with the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, Sen. Obama, then an Illinois state senator, said: "I have no way of knowing if I was a beneficiary of affirmative action either in my admission to Harvard or my initial election to the [Harvard Law] Review. If I was, then I am certainly not ashamed of the fact, for I would argue that affirmative action is important precisely because those who benefit typically rise to the challenge when given an opportunity."
Sen. Obama's newfound prominence has also prompted some successful blacks to wonder whether his achievements, and theirs, mean affirmative action should be modified to help poor and working-class whites.
"You have this traditional assumption that whites have made it and have it all -- that 'because I am black, I am disadvantaged,' and 'because I am white, I am advantaged,' " says Rev. Carlyle Stewart, who holds degrees from the University of Chicago and Northwestern and heads a large middle-class black church in Southfield, a short drive from Warren. "It may be time to broaden that discussion."
Sen. Obama "believes that no one can deny that our country has made tremendous progress in the past 50 years," said campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor in a statement. "But the suggestion that somehow Senator Obama's campaign represents an easy shortcut to racial reconciliation is just not realistic." He said Sen. Obama believes "affirmative action in universities today is appropriate only if race is one of many factors. The Supreme Court has made that clear."
Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain opposes "affirmative action plans and quotas that give weight to one group of Americans at the expense of another," says McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds. "Plans that result in quotas, where such plans have not been judicially created to remedy a specific, proven act of discrimination, only result in more discrimination and violate the concept of equality of opportunity."
Early Challenges
Affirmative action began in 1961, when President Kennedy issued an executive order declaring that federal contractors should "take affirmative action" to integrate their work forces.
The initiative broadened to include policies that favored women and minorities in hiring and promotion at work and in college admissions, the goal being to overcome past discrimination.
Many whites charged that this amounted to "reverse discrimination." In the landmark Bakke case of 1978, the Supreme Court narrowed the definition of affirmative action, declaring unconstitutional the use of some rigid quota systems. But it upheld the principle of affirmative action.
In 2003, a more-conservative Supreme Court again upheld the principle of affirmative action, but narrowed the interpretation still further, adding in a majority opinion, "We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary." Opponents of affirmative action recently filed another suit challenging affirmative action in Texas.
Many economists and sociologists agree that affirmative-action programs have helped spur the growth of the black middle and upper classes, defined as households making more than $40,000 a year. Today, this group accounts for about 40% of black households, up from about 25% in 1970, according to U.S. Census figures. During that same period, the percentage of white households in the middle class and above has risen to about 60%, from just under 50%.
Affirmative action policies have helped blacks gain access to large corporations and top universities, studies have shown, and the presence of blacks in these places has encouraged others to follow. The number of African Americans at the country's top 50 colleges and universities has doubled in recent decades, according to Harry Holzer, a Georgetown University economist. Women have benefited, too, especially in the 1970s and 1980s, when they began breaking into traditionally male-dominated fields.
A Leg Up for Whites
Michigan's Macomb County is home to many of the fabled "Reagan Democrats," the conservative working-class whites who left the Democratic Party largely over social issues including race in the 1980s. Here, life has been changed by affirmative action and the rise of the black middle class. In the past five years, the African-American population has doubled to about 6% from about 3%, in part as blacks have left Detroit for safer suburbs with better schools.
Such changes make some whites here wonder why affirmative action is needed at all. "If blacks are living in the same houses that I am living in, and they can afford the same things I can afford, why shouldn't I have the same breaks as they do?" says Tony Licata, a professional photographer in Macomb County who is white and says he is leaning toward voting for Sen. McCain.
"Race should not be the deciding point about who gets what," says Jessalin Horne, a white working-class college student who plans to vote for Sen. Obama in the fall.
In conversations, many white blue-collar and middle-class workers in Macomb County said they blame competition from China, India and elsewhere for their job losses, not competition from blacks. But the economic battering that many poor and working-class whites have taken as Michigan's auto industry has shrunk makes some whites feel that it's their turn for a leg up.
"I have been a supporter of affirmative action, but it needs to be refocused -- other groups need to be included," says Marceia Lugo, a divorced white mother of three whose mother and ex-husband have left Michigan to look for work. Ms. Lugo says she backed Sen. Clinton but will now vote for Sen. Obama. "I am not black, so I don't know those issues. But I have been poor, and I have had to struggle, so I should get special treatment."
Wooed by Elite Colleges
A half-hour drive from Warren lies Southfield, Mich., a leafy, integrated middle-class and upper-middle-class suburb that is a testament to the impact of affirmative action. Barbara Talley, now a retired financial analyst and a Southfield resident, became one of the first black owners of a KFC franchise in the 1980s, after Rev. Jesse Jackson lobbied the company to sell more franchises to African Americans. Wanda Cook-Robinson, Southfield's black school superintendent, has been the first black in several teaching and administrative positions at area schools. "That wouldn't have happened without affirmative action," says Ms. Cook-Robinson.
Many blacks here don't want to lose the boost that they say affirmative action gives them. Stephen Kemp, a successful black funeral director in Southfield, sends his son to a $24,000-a-year private high school. His son, a junior, has been receiving letters from elite colleges wooing him to apply. "When they look at his application they see he is an African-American male -- he has so much opportunity," says Mr. Kemp, who himself attended the University of Michigan. "Brown called him yesterday."
Mr. Kemp thinks it is fine that his son gets special attention, because diversity on campus benefits whites as well as blacks. "If you are getting a true education, that has to reflect all kinds of people," he says.
The election, especially Sen. Obama's success in winning white voters, has Mary Donaldson thinking that affirmative action is likely to fade away in coming years as the country continues to change. "My son is 9 years old. Just because he is black, he can't think he's going to get special treatment," says Ms. Donaldson, who works at a pre-school in Southfield and supports Sen. Obama. "I don't want him to totally depend on something like that."
[Mary Donaldson]
Twyla Griffin, who works for a health-care company and attends church in Southfield, says she thinks bias lives on. "It's fear -- 'this black boy is going to take my little white Johnny's job,' " says Ms. Griffin. Affirmative action, she says, simply levels a still-tilted playing field.
"It would be great if Obama made all the decisions for us, but there are a lot of people who still have decision-making power who are still a little prejudiced," says Marilyn Hobbs, an intellectual-property manager who supports Sen. Obama
James Jackson, a black banker and another Obama supporter, nods in agreement. He says he doesn't put his photograph on his business card like many of his white colleagues, because he thinks it will discourage white customers. "Race is a real issue still, no matter what happens in November," he says.
Key Events Involving Affirmative Action:
1961: President John F. Kennedy signs an executive order that instructs federal contractors to take 'affirmative action' to ensure against discrimination
1964: Civil Rights Act prohibits race-based discrimination by large employers. The Act forms the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a driving force in affirmative-action policies
1965: President Lyndon B. Johnson issues an order requiring federal contractors to expand job opportunities for minorities
1971: President Richard M. Nixon issues an executive order directing federal agencies to develop specific program goals for national Minority Business Enterprise contracting program
1978: The Supreme Court rules in favor of a white man who was denied admission to medical school. The opinion upholds the use of race in choosing among qualified applicants but rules that inflexible quotas are unconstitutional
1986: The Supreme Court upholds a judicially ordered 29% minority 'membership admission goal' for a union that had intentionally discriminated against minorities
1995: President Bill Clinton asserts that affirmative action is still needed but calls for elimination of any federal program that creates quotas
It seems to me that when an advocate is entrenched in a point of view or cause for so long, s/he can lose perspective. It's kind of like academics who study the minutae of a phenomenon for so long they forget that the rest of the world does not have the same knowledge or perspective on this phenomenon.
I think it is clear by any measure that most USAmericans have a racialist mindset. To impose the burden of changing this mindset upon Obama is the worst sort of race-based identity politics. Why is this his unique burden - because his parents fell on opposite sides of the U.S. color line? Why must he be the standard-bearer for a movement? Does anyone really know what he thinks about this issue? Has anyone from the multiracial movement sat down and had a conversation with Obama, or is he now going to become the biracial Black-identified whipping boy because he has made the "wrong" choice?
To me, Republican support of the multiracial category amounts to nothing more than a soundbyte. It could have also been about removing race-based preferences for non-Whites (a central goal of the right) rather than any inherent compassion for the plight of those with mixed ancestry who want this category, if I take a more cynical view. If anyone believes that the Republican Party is truly interested in helping this country transcend race I would ask why they appear to support the nonsensical categorization scheme for Latinos?
If Obama wants to win support among the White women who supported Hillary Clinton disproportionately, he had better support affirmative action. Studies show over and over again that the group who benefited most from affirmative action are White women.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 394 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Mon 16 Jun 2008 17:58 Post subject:
sagascend wrote:
I think it is clear by any measure that most USAmericans have a racialist mindset. To impose the burden of changing this mindset upon Obama is the worst sort of race-based identity politics. Why is this his unique burden - because his parents fell on opposite sides of the U.S. color line? Why must he be the standard-bearer for a movement? Does anyone really know what he thinks about this issue? Has anyone from the multiracial movement sat down and had a conversation with Obama, or is he now going to become the biracial Black-identified whipping boy because he has made the "wrong" choice?
I agree 100% - we're pointing out all of the things that Obama is not, when he never claimed to be (nor are the other candidates any of those things); we're pointing out the views tha Obama has, when he has never claimed to have had the opposite (and we don't know the views of the other candidates on the matter).
Honestly, when it comes to his views on race - we need to forget what we (think we) know, and pay attention only to what he has said since his campaign started. Only then can we save ourselves the disappointment that we really have no right to have in the first place.
sagascend wrote:
If Obama wants to win support among the White women who supported Hillary Clinton disproportionately, he had better support affirmative action. Studies show over and over again that the group who benefited most from affirmative action are White women.
I'm not sure that this would work. When you don't pay attention to statistics, I'm not sure if white women actually realize that they're the ones who benefit the most from Affirmative Action. If that's the case, it may not do much for him.
Posted: Mon 16 Jun 2008 22:09 Post subject: WHO expects Obama to end racism?
sagascend wrote:
It seems to me that when an advocate is entrenched in a point of view or cause for so long, s/he can lose perspective. It's kind of like academics who study the minutae of a phenomenon for so long they forget that the rest of the world does not have the same knowledge or perspective on this phenomenon.
I think it is clear by any measure that most USAmericans have a racialist mindset. To impose the burden of changing this mindset upon Obama is the worst sort of race-based identity politics. Why is this his unique burden - because his parents fell on opposite sides of the U.S. color line? Why must he be the standard-bearer for a movement? Does anyone really know what he thinks about this issue? Has anyone from the multiracial movement sat down and had a conversation with Obama, or is he now going to become the biracial Black-identified whipping boy because he has made the "wrong" choice?
To me, Republican support of the multiracial category amounts to nothing more than a soundbyte. It could have also been about removing race-based preferences for non-Whites (a central goal of the right) rather than any inherent compassion for the plight of those with mixed ancestry who want this category, if I take a more cynical view. If anyone believes that the Republican Party is truly interested in helping this country transcend race I would ask why they appear to support the nonsensical categorization scheme for Latinos?
If Obama wants to win support among the White women who supported Hillary Clinton disproportionately, he had better support affirmative action. Studies show over and over again that the group who benefited most from affirmative action are White women.
Why blame the multiracial movement? Isn't Obama selling himself that way? Even Steve Sailer noticed:
Quote:
It’s a commonplace in history for somebody of a mixed or marginal ethnic background to try to be more ethnocentric than thou, whether out of compensation or genuine enthusiasm: Napoleon, Eamon de Valera, and Stalin (from 1941 onward) are obvious examples. Similarly, Obama wrote a 442 page book about how his not being all that African-American by heredity and upbringing made him self-obsessed with being black.
To the Man from Mars, this article would make sense if Obama was running to succeed Jesse Jackson as the Uncrowned King of Black America. But, last I checked, he’s running to be President of the United States. To the average American voter, the news that Obama has relentlessly managed to prove to black activists such as Dr. West, the Rev. Wright, and Mrs. Obama that he’s black enough via his staunch political commitment to their cause might not be as reassuring as the article assumes.
This notion of "marital alliances" as a harbinger of peace among rival extended families seems terribly outdated today. Who would think any longer that dynastic marriages could solve anything? In our enlightened times, it seems silly to imagine that a prince combining Russian and German ancestry could keep the peace between Russians and Germans.
And yet, that is exactly how Barack Obama successfully sold himself in his now-famous keynote address to the 2004 Democratic convention. By beginning with 380 words about his family background, Obama positioned himself as the promised prince, the offspring of a marital alliance between the black and white races: He is the one we've been waiting for, the mutual heir who will unite black and white.
(That his parents' actual marriage was a short-lived bigamous fiasco that happened because his already-married father had impregnated his 17-year-old mother—well, Obama glosses over that part.)
Marital alliances, however, can create their own problems. Just as the Russians were mistrustful of their German Czarina during WWI, with horrific consequences, Obama has been dogged all his life by African Americans' doubts over whether he is "black enough." Thus he has had to take extravagant steps to prove his blackness to them—such as joining Rev. Wright's extremist church.
Along these lines, here's an update of an update of Richmond's speech concluding Shakespeare's Richard III about the dynastic marriage to end the War of the Roses between the Yorks and Lancasters:
We will unite the white rose and the black:
Smile heaven upon this fair conjunction,
That long have frown'd upon their enmity!
What extremist hears me, and says not amen?
America hath long been mad, and scarr'd herself;
The rev'rend shouted his congregation's ire,
The consultant plotteth Will Horton ads
The undiverse fleeeth to the exurbs
All this divided White and Black
Divided in their dire division,
But then Barack Sr. and Stanley Ann
The true succeeders of each racial house,
By God's fair ordinance conjoin together!
And let their heir, God, if thy will be so.
Enrich the time to come with smooth-faced peace,
With smiling plenty and fair prosperous days!
Abate the edge of racists, gracious Lord,
That would demand both parties make borders secure,
And make America less inclusive
Let them not live to taste this land's increase
That would with insensitivity wound this fair land's peace!
Now civil wounds are stopp'd, peace lives again:
That she may long live here, God say amen!
The extent to which he mentioned his ethnicity or that of his parents was that his father was raised in a small village in Kenya. Heck, if you had never heard of Obama before hearing this keynote, you may not have even thought his mother was white - because he never mentioned it.
Like many Americans, Sailer was hearing what he wanted to hear.
I'm not sure that this would work. When you don't pay attention to statistics, I'm not sure if white women actually realize that they're the ones who benefit the most from Affirmative Action. If that's the case, it may not do much for him.
It'll definitely vary by socioeconomic status. In my experience White women who are middle class and up and not extremely conservative are very much aware of the positive impact of affirmative action. In fact, these women seem to perceive that they are in direct competition with Black and other "minority" men, ignoring "minority" women and less economically advantaged White women. It seems to me that the concern is more about who gets advantaged first, whose "turn" it is. It's the same crowd who thought that White women should receive the vote before Black men during Reconstruction. When such women speak of "women" IMO they only mean White women.
Why blame the multiracial movement? Isn't Obama selling himself that way? Even Steve Sailer noticed[...]
I am not blaming the multiracial movement so much as pointing out that Connerly and other like-minded individuals are trying to make an example of Obama due to his parentage. It seems to me that such folks believe that Obama has an obligation to support his "race" (mixed) and the "correct" racial category (Multiracial) and is immoral and opportunistic since he is not falling in line with their thinking. They seem to project onto him their own political desires, which is understandable but as morally questionable as ODR supporters insisting that he is Black. From what I have seen and read of Obama he has not once minimized or ignored his mixed heritage. Just as a White-identified person of mixed ancestry can declare an identity that makes sense to them (which seems to be praised by multiracialists as progress when in actuality it is just as "dishonest" if the "correct" identity is "Multiracial"), he seems to have chosen the identity that made sense for him and lets everyone else call him whatever they want to.
In what interview has a journalist called him "mixed" or "biracial" has he corrected and said "no, I'm Black" ?
Posted: Tue 17 Jun 2008 14:17 Post subject: Connerly and Obama
sagascend wrote:
Powell wrote:
Why blame the multiracial movement? Isn't Obama selling himself that way? Even Steve Sailer noticed[...]
I am not blaming the multiracial movement so much as pointing out that Connerly and other like-minded individuals are trying to make an example of Obama due to his parentage. It seems to me that such folks believe that Obama has an obligation to support his "race" (mixed) and the "correct" racial category (Multiracial) and is immoral and opportunistic since he is not falling in line with their thinking. They seem to project onto him their own political desires, which is understandable but as morally questionable as ODR supporters insisting that he is Black. From what I have seen and read of Obama he has not once minimized or ignored his mixed heritage. Just as a White-identified person of mixed ancestry can declare an identity that makes sense to them (which seems to be praised by multiracialists as progress when in actuality it is just as "dishonest" if the "correct" identity is "Multiracial"), he seems to have chosen the identity that made sense for him and lets everyone else call him whatever they want to.
In what interview has a journalist called him "mixed" or "biracial" has he corrected and said "no, I'm Black" ?
Actually, Connerly is attacking Obama for his support of race preferences, just as if he were a "white" candidate. He is more disappointed in Obama, but he has not demanded that Obama change his racial identification. Aren't you reading that into it?
Posted: Tue 17 Jun 2008 14:46 Post subject: Re: Connerly and Obama
Powell wrote:
sagascend wrote:
Powell wrote:
Why blame the multiracial movement? Isn't Obama selling himself that way? Even Steve Sailer noticed[...]
I am not blaming the multiracial movement so much as pointing out that Connerly and other like-minded individuals are trying to make an example of Obama due to his parentage. It seems to me that such folks believe that Obama has an obligation to support his "race" (mixed) and the "correct" racial category (Multiracial) and is immoral and opportunistic since he is not falling in line with their thinking. They seem to project onto him their own political desires, which is understandable but as morally questionable as ODR supporters insisting that he is Black. From what I have seen and read of Obama he has not once minimized or ignored his mixed heritage. Just as a White-identified person of mixed ancestry can declare an identity that makes sense to them (which seems to be praised by multiracialists as progress when in actuality it is just as "dishonest" if the "correct" identity is "Multiracial"), he seems to have chosen the identity that made sense for him and lets everyone else call him whatever they want to.
In what interview has a journalist called him "mixed" or "biracial" has he corrected and said "no, I'm Black" ?
Actually, Connerly is attacking Obama for his support of race preferences, just as if he were a "white" candidate. He is more disappointed in Obama, but he has not demanded that Obama change his racial identification. Aren't you reading that into it?
Connerly wrote:
If Mr. Obama wants to be the candidate of "change," why doesn't he change the idiotic racial classification system that burdens millions of Americans? Why doesn't he call attention to the barbaric "one-drop" (of hereditary blood) rule that continues to haunt our nation, and which drives him to identify with the "black community" at the expense of his white ancestry? If he wants to unite the American people, how does he propose to do that by asking some Americans to accept preferential treatment for others and discrimination against themselves?
The bolded statements indicate that Connerly is concerned with more than race-based preferences.
I don't think I am reading into the intent here. If the ODR is "barbaric," and Connerly's perception is that Obama's identity choice upholds the ODR, how is that not an attack?
Now I am not sure which one of these issues is more important to Connerly (I'd guess race-based preferences is more important but who knows), but I do know that McCain receives very little criticism for either supporting or not acknowledging this "barbaric" ODR. How is the focus on Obama about anything other than his ancestry and personal identity choice? Why isn't McCain taken to task for supporting this "idiotic racial classification system," or not being asked to declare his position on it?
It is amazing to me that someone who is such a proponent of individual merit and freedom of choice still assigns the burden of racial representation onto a politician merely because of his background. Unless Hillary Clinton, who is ideologically a hair's breadth away from Obama, was also criticized for the same thing?
Does being White allow politicians to avoid responsibility for upholding race-based preferences and racial classification systems? Apparently so.
I will change my mind with sufficient evidence to the contrary.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 394 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Wed 18 Jun 2008 03:24 Post subject: Re: Connerly and Obama
With Obama carrying 90% of the black vote, it's not in his best interest to address ODR if he wants to get into office. And if he wants to get reelected, he won't touch ODR until after the reelection.
I'd do the same thing... if all my crap wasn't all over the internet!
Posted: Thu 19 Jun 2008 03:33 Post subject: Re: Connerly and Obama
sagascend wrote:
Powell wrote:
sagascend wrote:
Powell wrote:
Why blame the multiracial movement? Isn't Obama selling himself that way? Even Steve Sailer noticed[...]
I am not blaming the multiracial movement so much as pointing out that Connerly and other like-minded individuals are trying to make an example of Obama due to his parentage. It seems to me that such folks believe that Obama has an obligation to support his "race" (mixed) and the "correct" racial category (Multiracial) and is immoral and opportunistic since he is not falling in line with their thinking. They seem to project onto him their own political desires, which is understandable but as morally questionable as ODR supporters insisting that he is Black. From what I have seen and read of Obama he has not once minimized or ignored his mixed heritage. Just as a White-identified person of mixed ancestry can declare an identity that makes sense to them (which seems to be praised by multiracialists as progress when in actuality it is just as "dishonest" if the "correct" identity is "Multiracial"), he seems to have chosen the identity that made sense for him and lets everyone else call him whatever they want to.
In what interview has a journalist called him "mixed" or "biracial" has he corrected and said "no, I'm Black" ?
Actually, Connerly is attacking Obama for his support of race preferences, just as if he were a "white" candidate. He is more disappointed in Obama, but he has not demanded that Obama change his racial identification. Aren't you reading that into it?
Connerly wrote:
If Mr. Obama wants to be the candidate of "change," why doesn't he change the idiotic racial classification system that burdens millions of Americans? Why doesn't he call attention to the barbaric "one-drop" (of hereditary blood) rule that continues to haunt our nation, and which drives him to identify with the "black community" at the expense of his white ancestry? If he wants to unite the American people, how does he propose to do that by asking some Americans to accept preferential treatment for others and discrimination against themselves?
The bolded statements indicate that Connerly is concerned with more than race-based preferences.
I don't think I am reading into the intent here. If the ODR is "barbaric," and Connerly's perception is that Obama's identity choice upholds the ODR, how is that not an attack?
Now I am not sure which one of these issues is more important to Connerly (I'd guess race-based preferences is more important but who knows), but I do know that McCain receives very little criticism for either supporting or not acknowledging this "barbaric" ODR. How is the focus on Obama about anything other than his ancestry and personal identity choice? Why isn't McCain taken to task for supporting this "idiotic racial classification system," or not being asked to declare his position on it?
It is amazing to me that someone who is such a proponent of individual merit and freedom of choice still assigns the burden of racial representation onto a politician merely because of his background. Unless Hillary Clinton, who is ideologically a hair's breadth away from Obama, was also criticized for the same thing?
Does being White allow politicians to avoid responsibility for upholding race-based preferences and racial classification systems? Apparently so.
I will change my mind with sufficient evidence to the contrary.
Connerly's quote is hardly an "attack." People who compare those who criticize the ODR with those who advocate it is nearly always disingenuous. One is an elephant and the other a gnat. Critics of the ODR have no power to "force" (which, IMO, is only a projection by the pro-ODR forces) anyone to change his or her racial classification. The pro-ODR forces have lots of political power and they use it to force "blackness" on the living and dead. Do you deny this?
Connerly's quote is hardly an "attack." People who compare those who criticize the ODR with those who advocate it is nearly always disingenuous.
I'm fine to agree to disagree on how Connerly's statements can be characterized but I hardly agree that it is disingenous to point out that Connerly has not addressed the virtual silence on this issue from similarly situated Democratic candidates (politically) or Republicans who are presumed to support his position without questioning. I find the difference in treatment startling coming from someone who is all about inidividual merit and diminishing the importance of racial categorization. I am not surprised that you do not agree. Why isn't John McCain responsible for upholding the "idiotic racial classification system?" Coming from someone who actually does agree with this statement, I don't hold any one politician more or less accountable. The only reason I can see that you or Connerly seem to is because Obama is the child of cross-color line parents, and therefore "racially obligated" while McCain is not. It's a systemic problem of racialism in which those most impacted by the ODR are tasked with solving, but apparently no one else is. Why?
Powell wrote:
One is an elephant and the other a gnat. Critics of the ODR have no power to "force" (which, IMO, is only a projection by the pro-ODR forces) anyone to change his or her racial classification. The pro-ODR forces have lots of political power and they use it to force "blackness" on the living and dead. Do you deny this?
This is the same logic that leads some people to conclude that "minorities" cannot be racist. The valence or direction of power has nothing to do with how forceful it can be. Political power is relative and changes. The pro-ODR forces do not have anything to do with Connerly speaking his mind, unless you're contending that he is unable to say what he wants to say because he is being silenced?
The problem with supporting a minority position is that the burden of persuasion rests with supporters of this position. MLK had a minority position in the 50s/60s and now it is downright un-American to criticize his position. Now I wasn't alive then but my impression is that he believed that holding a mirror up to the nation to bring scrutiny to the sheer absurdity and inhumaness of the Jim Crow system would bring about its downfall. The multiracial movement (or at least visible advocates like Connerly), IMO, is taking cues from the subsequent Black Power Movement, which was all about angry, self-righteous and racialized confrontation of unequal treatment by an oppressive majority. I'm not saying anger or outrage is the wrong response or that I don't understand it, but I don't think it is effective. It doesn't win the hearts and minds of the majority. Lasting and positive change comes from leading people to draw the right conclusions on their own not "shaming" people into acquiescence (but silent resentment).
Making Obama a whipping boy or lighting rod is only going to create a new opposition and make it more difficult for him to make inroads. It might make supporters feel better and get big applause but it won't make it easier for him to address this issue, which I believe he wants to and would. I don't think the strategy is effective and pointing that out is not disingenous.
I think the biggest reason why Connerly wants Obama to take the anti-ODR and anti-affirmative action stance is because Obama is a mixed-race man of color (with black heritage), and McCain is obviously white. Mr. Connerly knows full well how politically incorrect it would look in the eyes of many African-Americans (and some independent white voters) if a white presidential candidate aggressively advocates anti-affirmative action agendas and initiatives. And it wouldn't take long for McCain to be labeled another old, white, Republican racist and sexist if he starts to emphasize those ideals before an election. If Obama took a strong position against affirmative action, I don't know if he would lose or gain more votes, but opponents of affirmative action would be happy that a half-black person would be saying what they've always felt but were afraid to say publicly. You know how like many white people felt a little more comfortable when it was Chris Rock who made his now infamous distinction between black people and ni**as in a segement of his "Bring the Pain" comedy special.
As far as Hillary goes, I believe she would get the same treatment if she were the Democratic nominee. There are plenty of conservative women out there who would make light of the fact that Clinton is a woman on the verge of becoming president, so they'd say that affirmative action in favor of women should disappear. Women like Laura Ingram and Michelle Malkin are just a few conservative personalties who would likely stress this, but you'd have to tune into the Fox News channel (or their radio shows) to hear those kind of opinions.
Presumptive Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama gave the best answer to the question whether he's black, mixed race or something in between. He recently told a Chicago fundraiser crowd that to some he
wasn't black enough, and he then promptly added that others say he might be too black. He's right, the knock against him has either been that he is too black or not black enough, not that he is too mixed race or not mixed race enough. Despite his occasional references to his white mother and grandmother, Obama by his own admission has never seen himself as anything other than being black. He says that's been that way since he was 12. So was he "white" or "mixed" BEFORE he was 12
It's that way for those whites who flatly say that they won't vote for him because he's black. His Democratic primary losses to Hillary Clinton in
Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky showed there are legions
of white voters who feel that race does matter to them. Few have said that
they oppose him because he's mixed race. Irrelevant since Obama openly identified as black - and therefore on the side of blacks as far as those whites were concerned. Melungeons are usually suspected of being part-black but identify as white.
Yet, the silly debate continues to rage over whether Obama is the black presidential candidate or the multiracial candidate. WHERE? They never tell you, they only accuse. The debate is even sillier when one considers that science has long since debunked the notion of a pure racial type. In America, race has never been a scientific or genealogical designation, but a political and social designation.
Put bluntly, anyone with the faintest trace of African ancestry was and still is considered black, and treated accordingly. Their part white ancestry doesn't give them a pass from taxis refusing to stop for them, clerks following them in department stores, from being racial profiled by police on street corner stops, from landlords refusing to show them an apartment, or being denied a promotion.Anatole Broyard didn't have any trouble, but blacks like Hutchinson want to deprive him and all others of their right to claim a white identity and reject a "black" one they deem false.
The mixed race designation doesn't magically make disappear the countless other racial sleights and indignities that are tormenting reminders that race still does matter, and matter a lot to many Americans.Crabs in a basket. Hutchinson sounds jealous.
Indeed, from the moment that Obama tossed his hat in the presidential rink a year ago, the mantra of the press and the public has been, "Is America ready for a black president?" Not "Is America ready for a mixed race president?" Obama called himself "black" not mixed-race, so hutchinson is illogical here.
The equally incessant mantra is that Obama if elected will make history as
America's first black president not the first mixed race president. That
tells much about the still frozen public attitudes and perceptions about
race and politics in America. Thanks to blacks like Hutchinson.
The deepest part of America's racial fault has always been and still remains the black and white divide. This has spawned legions of vile but durable racial stereotypes, fears, and antagonisms. Black males have been the special target of the negative typecasting. They've routinely been depicted as crime prone, derelict, sexual menaces, and chronic underachievers. And it's all the fault of whites, as far as Hutchinson is concerned.
There are slightly more than 6 million persons that self-identify themselves as mixed race in America. The number of persons with a black and white parent is a minuscule less that one half of one percent.By contrast, African-Americans (mixed or not) number more than forty million in America and make up about twelve percent of the population.
Hutchinson and his ilk are scared to death that the number will increase. Note that he puts the label "African American" on anyone he thinks has "black blood" (with the same cowardly omission of the "black blood" in Hispanics and Arabs).
The designation then of "mixed race" is so new, benign
and amorphous it softens racial attitudes and dilutes racial hostility. It
carries none of the negative racial baggage that black or African-American
does.Isn't that a good thing?
This is the big reason that scores of blacks have been frenzied over Obama's candidacy. They have turned out in record numbers in some
primaries and have given his candidacy the greatest boost forward. They have been unabashed in saying that they back him with passion and fervor because he is black. It's hard to imagine that they'd cheer him with the same passion if he touted himself as a mixed race candidate.
The thrill and pride for them is that a black man could beat the racial odds against blacks and scale the political heights.The stock line is that Obama's
candidacy shows how far America has come in that a black man has a real
shot at grabbing the top elected spot in the land. No one says that
Obama's candidacy shows how far America has come in that a mixed race man can win the White House. No one?
If Obama does win the presidency the new line will be that it shows not just how far America has come on race (meaning
racial attitudes toward blacks), but that America has finally arrived on
race (meaning racial attitudes toward blacks). Substituting mixed race for black would not have the same meaning or significance to blacks or whites.Hutchinson contradicts himself. He says that "mixed race" is an easy way to escape from the "black" stigma and at the same times he cites the "one drop" myth to claim that no one "tarbrushed" can escape it. "Whites" (Negro blood free by his definition), he claims, both despise the mixed race equally with blacks AND like them much better than blacks. Which is it?
If Obama grabs the White House, he'll claim it as a triumph for all
Americans. Many blacks will claim it as a triumph for them. They'll both
be right.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His
new book is The Ethnic Presidency: How Race Decides the Race to the White
House (Middle Passage Press, February 2008).
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is a nationally acclaimed author and political
analyst. He has authored ten books; his articles are published in
newspapers and magazines nationally in the United States. Three of his
books have been published in other languages. He is also a social and
political analyst and he appears on such TV programs as CNN, MSBC, NPR,
The O'Reilly Show, American Urban Radio Network, and local Los Angeles
television and radio stations as well. He is an associate editor at New
America Media and a regular contributor to Black News.com, Alternet.com,
BlackAmericaWeb.Com and the Huffington Post. He does a weekly commentary
on KJLH Radio in Los Angeles.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
