Racism And The Presidency

[Rani]

Hey guys, I'm proud of this so please read. Note: I get paid based on how many people click through to read the article so please tell everyone so lots and lots and lots of people read it! Thanks!

http://socyberty.com/history/racism-and-the-presidency/

'Rani

[Tyler]

Nice article!

[TheScotsman]

Well written.

But I disagree with his policies, and that has jack to do with his race. In the end, the use of race/racisim as an excuse for failure, or reason for success, is doing little more than driving an immense wedge into the heart of US politics. I would almost dare say the situation is starting to set race relations back a decade. People who aren't disagreeing with his views as a result of some twisted opinion of his heritage, and genetic makeup are getting damn sick of being told their opinion is not valid.

On the other hand... I finally realized Rani was not a dude!

[no longer welcome]

read, good work!

[Rani]

Thanks guys! Scotsman, I will say that you're right though I'm not certain we agree with the "why" of you being right. I think race will continue to be an issue until we reach the point where skin color is nothing more than descriptive. Take boxing for instance. A black and white fighter face off in the ring. The black fighter in red trunks and the white fighter in blue. It will be called as "so and so in the red trucks" throughout the fight. Yet the most obvious difference is one is black and the other is white which will be ignored in the interest of political correctness. Yet those same announcers in a fight where both fighters are white have no hesitation calling one blonde and the other brunette. Skin color should have no more and no less importance than hair or eye color, height, or weight, etc. Umtil it is, it's always going to be a charged issue. Some people may disagree with a presidential policy and not voice it for fear of being considered racist. Other may back a policy in the interest of racial unity. Many are having to defend themselves against charges of racism, and yet others may not realize their first most important instinctual reaction to anything is mistrust great enough that it does not give them the opportunity to logically look at the issue in depth. I do believe that considering the age of our Senators and Congresspersons that that instinctual mistrust is playing a part in the strength of their objections to everything across the board.

Let's take the health insurance issue. Any plan for change must consist of several parts. Rather than saying "Article 13, paragraph 4 needs to change to be changed to say......" many people paraphrase and object on a general basis without reference to the details. When it comes to laws however, it's all about the details. So even you in your argument that the proposed change would apply to illegal aliens should be looking at the exact detail and wording of that particular detail that supports your theory. Instead you resort to name calling, paraphrasing of the issue and bring down the ire of those who would label you racist for your generalized objections. Whether or not you are actually viscerally motivated by racial upheaval witnessed in your childhood is a moot point. Because it's such a charged and confused issue, my suggestion is that we all back up enough to distance ourselves from subconscious reactions, consciously and logically look at the details, not make blanket statements, and certainly not resort to name calling.

Everything we say, someone hears. Everything we write, someone reads. Everything we do somehow changes some portion of the world whether the tiny piece in our immediate vicinity or the greater world at large. It's important we recognize the power of our words and make the conscious choice to change the world in a positive way.

'Rani

[NIGHTS OF BAGHDAD]

great article..heres my thing..we are all proud of who we are..if your white,black,brown,purple,red,green, you get my point..so why not just say it..i mean like the example BWC used..the 2 boxers one is black and the other is white..instead of mentioning the color of there trunks why not distinct them by who they are? a white man and a black man..just say there names and say so and so the african american boxer or the black boxer and so and so is the Caucasian boxer or the white boxer..i mean they arnt blind they know they are black and white..people can see..so why cant we just say it? i mean if im asked a question about which boxer is jones..im gona say the black guy before i say what color his trunks are..because thats who he is the black guy he isnt the color of his trunks..i mean if we cant do that then how are we expected to accept each other has people if we have to use material objects to signify each other?

[TheScotsman]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/o...npartisan-vote/

A more right-spun story... http://news-political.com/2009/10/20/gopus...democrat-label/


I have no clue what to make of this. Somehow it gives me that "something is completely wrong with this" feeling. It almost seems like an insult to minorities as a whole, but Blacks more. Am I misinterpreting it, or is the justice dept saying that unless they have a D after their name the average minority citizen is too dumb to know who to vote for? In any case, it sure seems to be saying that their status as a member of a minority, or that their skin colour is more important in the election than their policies.

What could be more racially biased? Trying to twist elections into a skin colour popularity contest is not going to end well at all.

[McLovin600]

nice article. on a side note....I'm blacker than Barry

[Sonthert]

I clicked on the link ten times.

Boxers have to wear different colored shorts so they can be distinguished. There is no provision that they need to be of different skin colors. If two white boxers were in the ring, we'd revert to trunk color anyhow.

I don't think that the 1964 Civil Rights Ruling is going to be all that crucial in halting racism, its a matter of personal belief. Moreover, being very liberal (or conservative?) I don't think ostracizing racists is even sound. Its a question of taste, a simple opinion we may not agree with, but what can we say about a society who shuns people who have a particular viewpoint or opinion? Clearly having blacks sit in the back of the bus or not be able to marry white people is the next level, which is action. Clearly, these actions are wrong and these we can feel free to censure. Trying to stomp out an opinion or a philosophy is much more difficult and raises questions about our freedom. Today its trying to stop people from believing one race to be superior to another, then its trying to stop people who believe abortion to be immoral or some other issue which Americans should be free to have an opinion about. Jack Kennedy (No relation, Rani?), a man who I personally admire, spoke at American University's Commencement Address. He called on the Soviet Union to bridge the gap between the two countries, citing the ways we were similar to other humans. In that speech, he said that we don't have to fear the Soviet Union, because our way of life is good and decent, our country's ideology can compete with the Soviet Union's and win. That is, a battle of ideologies is pointless. Same thing here with racism vs. non-racists. The problem isn't racists or racism or even prejudice, the problem is discrimination. When one soft-brained idiot says "I won't marry people of different races" Then that guy needs to get the fuck out. If we turn our egalitarian-minded attitudes towards hating the mindset as well as the actions, we only serve to perpetuate the mindset. I have debated with racists for hours, irrespective of educational level, striking point after point they can't answer because their attitudes are based on opinions and faith, not on facts. They walked away still racists, though. You can't stop or turn faith with facts. Racism is based on faith. Thats why you can't get rid of it. Its much better to exercise tolerance. Hostility or contention seems to reinforce many people's faith. Proselytizing and moral certitude seem to only make people more rigid in their faith. Like the religious, racist people only see things the way they want to, that tend to lend credence to their faith. They see Obama as some sort of monster, the blacks are taking over! Oooooh. Scary. The US being run by a black man. They only see this neverending race war (which some black people also see) where the blacks are getting the upper hand. It has nothing to do with the reality that Obama seemed to be the best suited candidate at the time. McCain? Clinton? Edwards? Really? They see what they want to see. No light of reality will shine onto the faces of the racists until they open their eyes. As long as they aren't practicing discrimination, I don't think it matters. Unlike Mr. Anti-miscegenation, who thinks its his right to do whatever idiot thing comes into his polluted brain.

That being said, its a great article and well written, Rani. Quite informative. How is it you get sexier and sexier evry time I find out something about you?

[judgeposer]

That was a well researched article! Thanks for sharing. I clicked on it only twice though, but at least from two different computers, if that matters any.

For what it's worth, I am the product of an interracial marriage. My maternal grandparents and great-grandparents also had interracial marriages. My mother (a bi-racial woman) married by father (of Indian ancestry, but from Trinidad and Tobago). My grandmother (an English-Chinese woman via Jamaica, WI) married my grandfather, an American black man from Virginia. My great-grandmother (and English woman via Jamaica, WI) married my great-grandfather (a Chinese immigrant to Jamaica, WI).

The increasing generational success of my family refutes, at least in part, the justification offered by Keith Bardwell, the Louisiana Justice of the Peace who denied recently to perform a interracial marriage. At least part of Bardwell's public justification for his refusal he said was because such marriages produce children who often find themselves rejected by both black and white communities. On my family's experience, I would have to agree that being bi-racial or of mixed race does pose unique challenges, especially in societies and communities intent on having clean racial and ethnic categories. I would disagree with Bardwell on the point that the alleged "suffering" brought upon mixed race people doesn't necessarily translate into a debilitating circumstance. While I have not read any comments by Bardwell going so far as to say he is operating out of care and concern for mixed race folks, that we are bound to be so distraught and confused by the rejection we suffer I find too dubious a reason to prohibit the practice of mixed race marriages.

I think the likes of Bardwell, those who conceal their racism behind concern for those inhabiting the margins of a racially-fused culture, mirrors some that defenders of the President who take any dose of criticism of him as racially motivated. Of course some of his critics are motivated by race; that just stands to reason. Not all are. The President's insistence that race is a non-issue, I find reassuring and instructive. When Jimmy Carter "speculated that racism might be an issue in the opposition faced by President Obama," that he thinks "an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American," I think he showed his lack of creativity (and restraint himself), to put it most charitably.

Part of why our culture remains so racially charged is because we're reminded that it is by the bigots and "color-blind."

Because some critics of the Present are motivated by their bigotry does not mean that racial bigotry suffuses all or any of the credible criticism that can be made of the President. --Rani, I know that's not what you're saying so much, and your points are well-taken. I just want to make clear that we should just summarily dismiss the crticisms that are motivated by such blatant bigotry and concentrate on, discuss, and debate those criticisms that are not.

I don't think our President is doing a particularly good job, but his failure I will not and cannot explain away because of his mixed-race. We have contradictory views on the proper role of government, what it means to be democratic, and how those visions can combine best to bring out the healthiest America. Simple, I think.

Again, thanks for sharing! I enjoyed the piece.

[SloppyJoe]

Great read! I also read the "Living Clean" article and thought it was very nice! A writer who inspires others, and who reminds me of some stuff I've read before. Really helps to read that sort of stuff when your down.

[Rani]

Great read! I also read the "Living Clean" article and thought it was very nice! A writer who inspires others, and who reminds me of some stuff I've read before. Really helps to read that sort of stuff when your down.

Thank you, all of you, for the kind words. I just got my certification as a Life Coach, I'm continuing to work on my book and articles that I hope will have meaning to others, and my website is now operational (woo-hoo) although I'm still tweaking it. I'm working on figuring out how to add a blogging page to the site for daily entries that I hope will uplift and inspire. Any suggestions anyone would like to see please feel free to let me know. The website is www.ranisplace.com Thanks again everyone!

'Rani

[NIGHTS OF BAGHDAD]

rani, you have a misspelled word where it says contact rani there is a letter U after the word contact

[Rani]

rani, you have a misspelled word where it says contact rani there is a letter U after the word contact

Got it! Thanks.....

'Rani

[NIGHTS OF BAGHDAD]

rani, you have a misspelled word where it says contact rani there is a letter U after the word contact

Got it! Thanks.....

'Rani

yw