I was quite irritated, and a more than a little horrified by someone's comment on Fox News, that 'most African-Americans are in lock-step with the Democratic nominee.' This was from a viewer, who had responded with an email comment reacting to the revelation that Colin Powell endorses Senator Barack Obama.
How diminuitive and representative of Lemmingburg, America is that? This suggests that some people who make judgements about others, do so without considering race. The implication is that others (blacks) make judgements based primarily on their race.
I don't care what race the person who gave their opinion is.
You, sir or ma'am, are an idiot.
Colin Powell is black, apparently. But is he comparable to John Lewis? Jesse Jackson, Alan Keyes, etc? What would it have meant had any one of these also "black" politicians announced their support for Barack Obama? How about Bill Cosby? Will Smith? Clarence Thomas...Forest Whitaker ?JC Watts? The guy who played Steve Erkel?
If they are all the same or have the potential to stay lockstep with Bush, er Obama; then by the same logic, John McCain is lying about being a maverick just to get into the White House. He is white (?), he is a Republican, he is ex-military...What else is he? By the way, Colin Powell is ex-military and a Republican, in addition to being black. The first two were choices, and ...
I realize that because of one's race, some will disempower the humanity of others, considering it as secondary or worse; particularly when convenient to hate that person. This is the ugly side of so-called white guilt. Flip the script right before you say something sooooooo stupid that reveals what you enjoy passing off as actual thoughts. AKA: poppycock/ balderdash/ politico-babble, douche, WTF? etc. An example of the alternative to making sure we all think clearly, even when not opening our mouths:
A Utah State Senator apparently believes that only babies from his master race are cute.
Republican Sen. Chris Buttars compared Senate Bill 48, which addresses equalizing school construction funds, to a black baby, calling it “a dark, ugly thing.”
Oh, but don’t worry. He “felt bad” afterwards, though there is no indication as to whether he “felt bad” for being a racist prick, or if he “felt bad” because other people now know he’s a racist prick.
Go see Chris Rock's "Kill The Messenger." I don't agree with all he says, but...
"Yeah, I said it!" ...Pretty much says it.
Leadership on both sides - which unfortunately includes celebrities that exert undue influence in our culture - is encouraging the same narrow-minded tripe, which serves the interests of relatively few. The alternative is that they are raising the standards of what it means to call one's self conservative or liberal, and elevating our important dialogues to include only those of a comprehensive nature - which serves us all.
More importantly perhaps, we must redefine what it means to be Americans. All of us have work to do, in order to achieve what we MUST. My theory is that it necessarily begins with unity of purpose; before we can achieve actual unity, we must feel as one. How?
Demonizing, or even just limiting (actually, dehumanizing) any group, whether Catholic (pre-60's, and when convenient ) Jews (pre- 20th c, and when convenient), Blacks (into the 21st c, when convenient), or most recently 'the Mexican drug dealers,' is a method used consistently by the douchebags on the right, to highlight irrelevant factoids, in a very meaningful - and often successful - attempt at unifying their base. The danger in this lies in shaping the way their base thinks.
challenge:
If you don't believe in the power of language, go to Google and search "lost child found" then search 'Mexican drug dealer' under the news tab. Then come back and post a comment after reading the rest of this post.
The child who was just found doesn't need to start growing up with 'Mexican drug dealer' in his vocabulary. It is enough to know that this unfortunate, criminally abusive experience that is now part of his past, is something that neither he nor any other - regardless of race - should have to endure. Those are morals, faith-centered values, and principals we can all be proud of, regardless of our real or perceived differences.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Emily Holleman
Rw005g
Don Rich
DJohn
ali b
Ron Powell
Salon.com
Comments
CNN is, in my opinion, probably the most balanced of the networks. I actually enjoy hearing from Alex Castallanos, who I think at least hears the same things in real life that I do. Ed Rollins and Bay Buchanan are pretty far out there, but not like the crew that shows up on the air at Fox News. Maybe Michelle Bachman can get a job there, perhaps on the new Glenn Beck program that starts in March.
Fair and balanced...uh huh
If so why is Fox loading up on attack dogs and lunatic fringe hate filled types?
By the way, did you notice that The Salt Lake Tribune endorsed Obama? You could not have made me believe that two days ago.
He is "black"; but he is not necessarily "African-American" in a generic political sense.
He was born in New York - in Harlem in fact. His parents were Jamaicans.
There is a slight distinction with a difference here for what it's worth.
What I find bothersome about statements like the one quoted is that they separate out some group of people and suggest that their judgment isn't based on the same facctors as for other groups. (This post makes that point well.) But other possible ways of applying the same sort of argument never come up. To continue with my Bush analogy, it turns out that black voters went for Kerry rather than Bush 88% versus 11% in 2004. Should that surprise us? Not really--that's essentially the same rate that Democrats as a whole voted for Kerry rather than Bush. White people, as a group, voted for Bush 58% versus 41% of the time. Pretty decisive. And yet do we hear anyone in the mainstream media saying, "White voters should really stop voting in lockstep with the Republican candidate"? I haven't come across this yet...
I agree, but in the interest of full disclosure, I must clarify by stating my opinion, that the mistake was not necessarily 'whites supporting GW Bush', but rather their indiscriminatingly and categorically doing so.