Log In | Register
I have a new hero, a totally fresh discovery for me. His name is Kevin Jackson, author of The Big Black Lie, a critique of liberal America, and host of The Black Sphere website. He was interviewed recently by Melissa Kite in the Spectator, giving his views on Barack Obama and David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, and, oh my, what refreshing and perspicacious views they are!
He said something that I have long suspected though, for me, it was a truth that dare not speak its name – voting for Obama was racist! Let me qualify that by saying I believe that there were a great many people who voted for him more because of the colour of his skin than his merits as a candidate. Jackson is more direct –“They wanted a black president. Racists that they are.."
Voting for Obama is Racist - Broowaha
- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (42)
In his interview Jackson adds novel substance to the race argument, approaching it from a wholly different perspective. He told Kite that the majority of people who voted for Obama did so because he was black, a form of racism by any objective measure;
My issues with Obama are that if you take colour off his résumé and look at his ability to run the country, there is no way that he would have been elected. If Barack Obama were anything other than half black, if he were half Chinese or half Irish, there is no way on God’s earth that he would have been elected. He got elected on the basis of colour and that’s ridiculous.
I agree with this notion of inverted racism... a liberal left 'PC' racism, if you will. What do you think?
- 5 votes
#1 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:23 PM ESTIf black people voting for a black candidate is racist what did this guy call blacks who voted for white candidates.
- 4 votes
I don't think that is the point; it's simply that qualifications for presidency were less of a concern; he was used as the 'Black race card,' that his supporters were hoping would get him elected catering to minorities and illegals for votes -- the ploy worked. We shouldn't be electing unqualified people due to the color of their skin.
- 4 votes
Just a reminder of CoH 1 that will be enforced:
Above all else, respect others. Address issues and arguments and refrain from making personal attacks. If you see something disrespectful or inappropriate, report it - rather than further inflaming the situation. More +
- Adding a personal attack to an otherwise valuable comment or article serves only to render that contribution invalid in its entirety. Such content is subject to moderation.
- Harassment and/or intimidation of others on Newsvine will not be tolerated, and patterns of such behavior may result in account cancelation.
- 1 vote
cl-1
Haven't we elected white men that weren't qualified for office
- 3 votes
For me, using the standards that I agree with from an article I seeded in December about presidential qualifications... my answer would have to be, "yes."
I wasn't a huge fan of McCain, mostly because I hadn't fully researched him, but he had more of those qualifications than many and he might have made fewer mistakes as a result; whereas, Obama has none of them.
The point I made in another article discussion was the same as Mr. Jackson's in that if another person had exactly the same qualifications and experiences as Obama, but was Chinese, N. Korean or even Native American, he most likely would not have won; Obama won because he was half Black. We need to vote with qualifications in mind--the one that is closest to meeting them all, in addition to character requirements.
- 2 votes
Haven't we elected white men that weren't qualified for office
Yes Fed, we have. We mostly try not to re elect them though, which may be why, throughout our history, the re election of Presidents is not a common thing. Remember, "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me".
CL,
Just got Bubblegum. Please remove any extra posts.
- 1 vote
True enough, Bush was not very good. Of course, at the time of the re-election, the economy wasn't bad and the election was between someone who wasn't too bright and one who had skated perilously close to treason. Sen. Kerry was fairly bright and competent but what he did after leaving the Navy was unforgivable. It would have been like electing Jane Fonda.
- 1 vote
Wow, is this article a flame war waiting to happen. Good luck moderating, CL. If it was anyone other than you I'd have questioned their motivations for seeding it.
Ooooookay....might as well jump in the deep end.....
1) Are there people who likely voted for Obama BECAUSE he is black? Yes.
2) Are there people who likely refused to vote for Obama BECAUSE he is black? Also Yes.
If anyone falls into one of the above ......you voted on racist grounds. Shame on you!
All other voters who did or did not vote for Obama because you either liked or did not like his fitness for office regardless of his race....you are -not- a racist and good on you.
That wasn't as hard as I thought....
- 3 votes
#2 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:52 PM ESTLol... I 'really and truly' agree with the perspective Mr. Jackson has of liberal America... and he is a Black man.
I agree that voting with the criteria that you mentioned above is being racist... and I would not be surprised that those were the basis for most who voted.
Thanks for being here. Nice comment, too! In fact, you cause me to wonder if I should post a CoH. I usually don't because we are all adults (usually:), and we know the drill.
I'm going to add one to my above #1.
- 1 vote
OBAMA is black (father) Obama is white (mother) Obama is more than well educated, experienced in community activism AND Illinois government in short, the most qualified president we've ever had. Our country is the most diverse it has ever been, if we don't have a leader with exceptional understanding, diplomatic skills and pintpoint focus we have only ourselves to blame.
- 3 votes
#3 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:44 PM ESTI agree with you that he is well-educated, as well as being experienced in community activism; however, we will have to disagree on "the most qualified president we've ever had."
For the highest Office in the most influential and powerful nation in the world.... I require much, much more experience in the political arena, the field of economics, military experience in both peace and war times, as well as a proven history of Patriotism for 'this' great nation, ..I don't want to see a leader put 'others' before us.
That would include putting 'the people' first, addressing our areas of division, instead of promoting them allowing self-interest to gain strength, creating an economically feasible, educational community-valued and *supported* environment, instead of one mandated from a government source... supposed areas of expertise by the current Admin... and he failed miserably.
You are welcome to your opinion; I accept it. And, "Thank you" for contributing.
- 2 votes
YES, standards cannot be too high. In a perfect world, a miracle worker might meet our lowest standard. You disagreed that Obama is not the most qualified, yet failed to mention who is or was more qualified or why you think so. In the areas you say "he failed miserably" you fail to give an example of a president who has, or could live up to your standards. If the United States President was a benevolent dictator, I would agree with you completely--that the president should fix all problems and accept blame because no one could or would stand in his way. I never implied, however, Obama is, was, or could be "Perfect"; even if that were possible no one would agree. If Obama could heal the sick & raise the dead, there would still be a following who would call for his Crucifixion.
- 3 votes
If Obama could heal the sick & raise the dead, there would still be a following who would call for his Crucifixion ... Geezer-guy as usual your spot on ... Amen !
- 1 vote
i think that in some cases voting along racial lines should be considered racially motivated rather than racist. being racist has more to do with racism and the holding down or holding back of another race through prejudice. race alone though should not be a deciding factor in the decision of how to cast your vote.
ra·cial
(rshl)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of race or races.
2. Arising from or based on differences among human racial groupsrac·ism
(rszm)
n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
- 1 vote
#4 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:16 PM ESTThank you for your comment. I agree that "some" voters are most likely racially motivated, with a possible mindset that favoritism will ensue. Some might vote as a "racist," as well. I would like to see the voting public get away from self-interest motivations, and think more about 'qualifications' that will keep our nation strong.
the label RACIST is being far too misused whenever someone looks at things from the way they have grown up and have been taught the point of view that is racially opposite from another. this does not make it racist, not until their viewpoints turn them to be treating the other party so that they cannot better themselves because of what they are. people should all be looked at for who they are.
it is actions and intentions that take something that is racially motivate and make it something that is racist. the american public and political populations have some how forgotten this and as a whole need to grow up and quit calling others racist when it is not so.
- 1 vote
You have made a very fine (good) point that we need to understand the motivations for decisions, and not assume racism (if applicable).
Personally, and you may disagree, I think "racism"..defined by your definition #2, is often used by the voting public as "inverted racism," as suggested in the article.
Instead of prejudicing in a negative way, trying to oppress or ostracize - they are 'favoring' a group that they think is 'better,' more deserving or other. This is similar to your point with "racially motivated," but your's is *not* suggesting 'better.'
Thank you for your contributions.
racial motivation can be used in both good and bad directions and when used for the bad people often refer to it as racism. at that point i find racial motivation to be preference against where racism itself becomes action against. we all prejudge things in our lives and that motivation takes place. how we act upon that motivation is where it can turn into racism in it' ugliest form.
hope i said that right because it can be a fine line between the two.
- 1 vote
i find racial motivation to be preference against where racism itself becomes action against.
Yes, but :)... preference takes "action" at some point. If we "prefer" something, then we will always favor it every time a decision confronts us. And, (you are not going to like this) I think racism is acceptable.
What I mean by that is that I don't agree with the notion of Free-will. Everything is determined to result in an outcome influenced by genetics and environment.. genetics will rule (natural attractions, natural preferences, tastes, etc.), with the environment causing "mistakes," throwing off sensory perception, in whatever topic is involved.
As eloquently stated, to the effect, by another elsewhere:
" It is clear that human behavior is a lot like the behavior of fundamental particles described by Quantum Mechanics, it's not linear and predictive, it's probabilistically emergent, but not an overreach of absolute determinism.
The pattern of human nature (genetics) may be tantalizingly crystalline, but the way that pattern emerges through each of us, like the quantum process that is responsible for the 'interference pattern' (environment), is full of possibility and is impossible to predict."
He goes on, but as I see it relating to what we are talking about is that 'racism' is most likely a genetic preference that logically results in decisions and actions. I don't see it as a bad thing to exercise one's genetic tendencies; it's being 'true' to oneself; it's 'knowing' oneself. It's only bad if the 'actions' cause physical or emotional harm...in which, one must use unconstrained 'choice' to prevent.
So, I guess, in a way, I disagree with "preference vs. action" as two, separate entities that we can control. It's just the harm factor that 'might' be controllable, but that depends on the circumstances. We shouldn't be 'forced' to go against a natural inclination--just because someone of the opposing persuasion is going to view it as 'racism' if we don't choose 'them.'
Yes, but preference takes "action" at some point.
i believe that right there is the fine line i refer too. the direction of the action determines racial motivation or racism when seen through my eyes.
It's only bad if the 'actions' cause physical or emotional harm.
that is definately where things become racist.
So, I guess, in a way, I disagree with "preference vs. action" as two, separate entities that we can control.
this is where we really have our disagreement then as i see both as totally controllable through our own choice.
now back to this
And, (you are not going to like this) I think racism is acceptable.
the fact that we have discussed this the way we have, it is obvious that we define racism differently. i don't see within our discussion a person who would go out of their way to physically or emotionally hurt or discriminate against someone because they are different than yourself. so, me, i don't really have a problem with your statement. your acceptability comes from viewing racism from a different angle forming your opinion and that my friend, you are allowed.
i've enjoyed our conversation, if you don't mind, FR sent.
Yes, 'preference vs. action' is where we apparently disagree. And that's Ok, by me, as well.
It's that I see 'preference' as not separate from action - they go hand-in-hand, in my mind.
i.e. Using my final statement above as an example:
We shouldn't be 'forced' to go against a natural inclination--just because someone of the opposing persuasion is going to view it as 'racism' if we don't choose 'them.'
I had an employer judging an employee in mind when I made that statement. If all qualifications are equal (or close) between two employees, then I think an employer should go with the person that most juxtapositions with his personal business ethics, appears most compatible in personality and like-mindedness, ease of communication and comprehension, and overall personal standards that will benefit the business relationship. ..This could be viewed as 'racism' (if applicable) by the party that didn't get the job. In my mind, it's *both* as you describe, "racially motivated" and as I describe, "inverted racism." i.e. Racially motivated due to sameness; and inverted racism due to "natural" prejudice or genetics.
What's your opinion?
Thank you for the FR. I've enjoyed our discourse, as well.
under the cicumstanses and conditions you mention i would have to agree with the hireing solution you have. from the business ethics all the way to the personal standards, none of that has one ioda with race. sameness of fit doesn't have to be about race. if the party that didn't get the job did go after a racist claim, i believe it would be that party that has the problem.
CL1, President Obama is black, you got that much correct. I voted for President Obama who happens to be black. President Obama's Ideas and actions match his words unlike Bush who consistently said one thing while doing another... (proved facts not speculation). I Bring up Bush not to again stick a fork in him, (which is way to easy), but to draw a comparison between an honorable person, President Obama, and one that happens to be a more preferable color according to some people. McCain had experience yet apparently had learned nothing saying despite all the warning that the economy was fine just before the bottom dropped out. Palin, McCain's running mate was a half term Governor that spent most of her time on the Campaign trail shopping for new clothes. President Obama Provided a clear message of a new direction while the Republicans spent the entire election process talking about a 1960's radical Bill Ayers having been in the same room as President Obama and what a Preacher had said in a past sermon at President Obama's church. President Obama's experience had been to serve people. McCains only brush with fame after years of service in Washington was to be censured for serving a Banker named Charles Keating. I suggest that the American People are begining to judge a person by the content of his soul not by the color of his skin ... At least I try ... How about you ??
- 3 votes
#5 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:38 AM ESTjudge a person by the content of his soul not by the color of his skin ... At least I try ... How about you ??
I try to judge their character, an additional factor to what I mentioned in 3.1:
For the highest Office in the most influential and powerful nation in the world.... I require much, much more experience in the political arena, the field of economics, military experience in both peace and war times, as well as a proven history of Patriotism for 'this' great nation, ..I don't want to see a leader put 'others' before us.
I wasn't wanting to turn this into an Obama-bashing fest, so I won't go there, but I want a whole lot more than an appeaser and community activist to run our great nation. It's time to stop modelling us after the nanny-state, socialist model--the UK, among other things, and find a true Patriot, socio-economist, and a man of character that will put the interests of this nation 'first.' Imo, I don't see anyone qualified at the moment, to vote for.
obama’s only hope of re-election is to play up the race element--heaven knows it worked the first time....he has nothing else going for him..if I was to judge character as you ask obama hasn’t a chance in hell..
- 2 votes
That's how I see it as well, katlin.
There are more liberal black women this time around (according to a Pew report) than in 2008, and I am concerned they will be voting for color.
Thanks for stopping by.
- 1 vote
CL1, I read your article, the headline and comments .. The attempt by the author is not to discuss experience but a claim that President Obama was elected because he was black. People voted for him in some perverse backlash way. I pointed out why I voted for him and why I think you and the article are wrong. You say your not going to President Obama bash and then fully engage in President Obama bashing... I believe the American people made the right decision. Its long past time when we stopped engaging the world in war, terror, death, destruction, water boarding and instead engaged in conversation and partnership. If you call that a nanny State so be it, If you can only be a Patriot by killing people then I'm sad for you, I believe otherwise... I certainly see nothing qualified on the Republican side I will vote for President Obama again... A man of the people kind of like George Washington or Lincoln. I suppose that comes from actually serving in the community rather then looking down on it from the hilltop.
- 3 votes
No, that is not what a nanny state is. It was discussed in the article.
Here's a Wiki entry for you:
Nanny state is a term of British origin (and primary use) that conveys a view that a government or its policies are overprotective or interfering unduly with personal choice.[1]
- 2 votes
CL1, I see nothing in the way President Obama conducts Foreign affairs as being Nanny ... His record on Pirates and high level terrorists is much better then the previous administrations. As far as limiting personal choices the latest on that front is the republicans want me to practice birth control by just saying no if you get my drift and women by placing an aspirin between their knees. When a political party gets to that level of discourse they are getting pretty personal. Black or White is not the issue, President Obama received a majority of electoral votes and popular votes ... He was elected by all shades and grades of people and he has in many cases been the only one acting like he was the adult in Washington. I personally do not think the American people care what color he is...
- 4 votes
President OBAMA IS the president for all of us. The racists can please themselves by voting as they wish; whites vote for the mother's genes; non-whites can vote for his father's genes. The liberal progressives can vote for Obama for his progress in those areas, while worried Conservatives can vote for him because President Obama is such convenient target for blame. EVERYBODY can win.
- 2 votes
CL1, Question for you ???? When President Obama was first elected Limbaugh and all the Conservative talking heads cried and whined that President Obama (because he was black) would only represent black people. That attack was a dismal failure and President Obama has been criticized from the black community for not being black enough. Proving I think that President Obama is color blind as we all should be. Is this White Racism backlash somehow the new way to divide the white vote by saying if your not racist vote white. I mean I'm confused ??
- 3 votes
#6 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:59 AM ESTI understand your point. No, I don't see evidence that Obama has shown favoritism to the Black community. That isn't what the article or my premise is based on.
My premise is why people vote the way they do. From a qualifications stance, using my criteria, McCain was more qualified (I'm not saying that he necessarily would have had a better outcome--I'm strictly addressing 'qualifications' of what should constitute a great leader, using the guidelines from the article I seeded in December--that I agree with).
Again, if another person had Obama's resume as a candidate for the highest office of this nation---I don't believe he/she would have won in 2008. Obama won simply because he is a person of color. Voting color is not using critical thinking; it's not putting the 'nation' first; it is using racial prejudice and bias.
My examination--and not just with this article--is to determine if we have a choice in who we vote for--or if we have a genetic determinism in the choices we make, and will therefore forego crticical thinking and will go with what comes 'natural.'
- 1 vote
-or if we have a genetic determinism in the choices we make
i'ld like to change that word genetic to cultural. culturally many do seem to be predisposed in how they vote. same culture, better fit for the conscience of how a vote is cast. may not be the best idea but it will continue to happen with far too many people.
- 1 vote
Yes, cultural would be environment... that's the debate... nature vs. nurture. :)
- 1 vote
The prez is not entirely black, and if one voted on this alone, one voted for half a man. I vote for him because he has big ears, which lends to the art of listening. I guess this makes me an auricular-ist. Our political symbol is a Q tip:D
- 1 vote
#7 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:36 PM ESTLOl, Hi Penn... All great reasoning for who and why we should vote! ☺
Q-tip, eh? Well, between Donkies and elephants, you are going to be very popular!!
Voting for ear-size actually makes about as much sense as voting for a person's color (no matter which half of the person is being represented:). /sarc.
- 2 votes
In time, I suspect the ear party would also split into left ears and right ears. Oh well, maybe the between the ears party? No witty symbol to offer.
the in-between the ears party?
That's the Party I would vote for because they might have the brains.
- 1 vote
That's the Party I would vote for
Indeed! .......And I have high hopes that no one would think of voting for half a brain. But then, we can become obsessed with the most ridiculous things.....symbols, associations, color of a persons skin, or the way they look etc.
What are the qualifications for being the president?
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
