Posted by
FeargalX on Monday, May 19, 2008 10:35:45 PM
Not too long ago, the Simpson's had an episode which parodied the common leftist attitude which blames "evil white men" for every ill of the world. Now, for the first time, we are close to electing someone with those open beliefs.
Years ago, it was much easier to attribute blanket attitudes about a race stemming from ignorance since information was much harder to obtain -- even for universities and rich people. So, ignorance was commonplace even among the elite. For a examples involving presidents we see:
1) Some of Jefferson's writings.
2) Lincoln -- some of his writings (though arguably he said and wrote some of those things because liberal racial attitudes were considered radical and not supported by a majority of the electorate)
3) Woodrow Wilson (perhaps the most racist President ever -- re-segregated the Civil Service in U.S. government after it had been integrated for many years -- was open about his beliefs)
4) Warren Harding -- perhaps the strangest example. He may have been sworn into the KKK as President -- yet there is compelling evidence that he had some African ancestry -- and even admitted that when he was asked that by a friendly reporter ("how would I know if one of my relatives jumped the fence) -- he also sought the votes of blacks.
5) Richard Nixon -- often used the "N" word in his tapes.
There are other examples, but those easily come to mind for me. Probably the worst for me would be Woodrow Wilson's -- even thoough he was the most educated U.S. President (he was a university professor, president and PhD.).
Here are some of the known examples that come to mind with Obama and his wife and his closest mentor (Jeremiah Wright who: 1. baptized his children; 2. performed his marriage, 3. brought him to Christianity, 4. inspired the title of one of his two books, 5. was recently described by Obama as being as close to him as his grandmother who helped raise him).
Here are the points to which there are no good answers -- any singular one of these should disqualify someone from being elected Senator let alone President:
1.) Obama's grandmother being called by Obama a "typical white person" (just compare different "white" ethnic groups and you see how ignorant and racist such a statement is -- Albanians v. Swedes v. French v. Russians v. Turks v. Germans v. Spaniards v. Swiss v. Bulgarians v. Irish v. Finns v. Portuguese -- have different languages, religions, and quite ofen "look" different from each other).
2.) Michele Obama being only proud of being an American as an adult recently based upon his performance in state primaries (not being proud of the first black woman elected to the Senate -- Carol Mosely Braun, not being proud of any number of peace initiatives of a variety of U.S. Presidents, not being proud of the first somewhat viable black presidential candidate Douglas Wilder, or the first black governor of a southern state since the 19th century -- also Douglas Wilder, not being proud of a number of nobel prizes won by Americans, first black mayor of Chicago Harold Washington, first black ambassador to the U.N. Andrew Young, the initiation of black history month, Martin Luther King day becoming a national holiday -- anyway, there are too many examples to count that should matter to Americans or anyone who has special interest in black American interests). For those who might think I should cut the wife of a candidate some "slack" -- anyone who is a graduate of Princeton and Harvard Law Schools (schools that I would not have had any chance of being admitted to) deserves no "slack" and giving them "slack" means that you actually have no respect for those significant accomplishments.
3.) Michele Obama stating that because her husband is black he is always susceptible to being murdered when he even just goes to a gas station (while blacks are more often the victims of murder, the perpretrators are also generally black, white on black crime is rare, black on white crime is common -- such as statement deserves no more respect than anything Al Campanis said. Again, we are dealing with a Princeton and Harvard graduate. How someone like that would strongly believe such a "non-fact" is dangerous -- and such attitudes are what actually caused the innocent Duke students to be prosecuted because of skin color -- can you imagine who might be wrongfully prosecuted because such a person had the ear of the president?).
4.) Obama's implication that rural whites are "bitter" which is why they believe in gun rights, are religous, and are anti-immigration. First, not all flyover whites have the same opinions on these three different issues -- I know many people in flyover country who either are religous or gun owners -- but are not both -- and plenty who are both -- and plenty who are neither. Again, having such an ignorant attitude about a race should not be accepted -- nor should any candidate who believes all blacks are good at basketball and like rap music be treated seriously.
5.) Obama choosing to join a church because of Jeremiah Wright -- even Obama cannot answer this question now. You could write a book on this topic. Obama is choosing to try to become president -- so he deserves no slack on this issue -- and he is a Columbia and Harvard graduate -- so by definition of being a graduate of such schools means that he is in the elite -- in fact with the Kennedy connections many of them who aspired to go to Harvard law school could not get admitted (Robert F. Kennedy, Edward Kennedy and John F. Kennedy, Jr.).
6.) Obama comparing his grandmother being afraid because of an actual incident -- being shaken down for money by a black man -- to actual racism.
7.) Obama comparing Wright's comments to comments his grandmother may have made. Unless Obama's grandmother said things like all blacks are criminals, or that God is white, or that blacks are inherently dishonest, or she believes in "white values" -- there is no comparison. I would think that if his grandmother did make such statements or harbored such beliefs she would have disowned her daughter and would not have helped raise Obama -- so it is pretty obvious she has no such beliefs.
The bad news is that if Obama gets the nomination (which he probably will) no matter what he will win at least 10 states in the general election any at least 40% of the vote. So, for the most part people do not care that he has these beliefs -- yet Al Campanis Lawrence Summers (and many others) have been destroyed for making less controversial statements.
What does this say about the American electorate? What does this say about Americans?
The merits of a candidate are what ideally should matter to voters -- but having beliefs based upon ignorance that are insulting to such a large segment of people should be disqualifying -- but they are clearly not. They matter little to Americans -- the "little" amount may be a margin that will prevent him from not being elected -- but it would be pretty hard to figure that out.
Obama also stands for real racist beliefs -- his own identity is based upon a pardoring to racist leftist beliefs. That is, there are three pretty strong reasons that he should not identify himself simply as "black." 1) he is bi-racial, 2) his black family abandoned him, his "white" family loved, supported and cared for him, and 3) he is not ethnically connected to black Americans whose ancestors come from a different part of Africa than Kenya -- that is -- his connection to black Americans is as suspicious as someone who is Spanish trying to connect with Bulgarians.
Relative to point #3 -- his connection to black Americans is actually a symtom of actual stereotyping or making a blanket assumptions -- kind of like assuming that someone who is from Japan is from China. If Obama were less educated, it would be more understanding why he should not seek to have his own identity. But, feeling sorry for someone or making excuses based upon ignorance are two very big disqualifying factors for an important position.
____________________________________________________
Who is at fault for our current ignorant racial attitudes? Who is at fault for the allowance of the innocent Duke students being prosecuted? Who is at fault for the tolerance for statements blaming "whites" for collective guilt which is not based in reality? Who is at fault for the inability -- without being labeled a racist -- to question racial quotas and preferential treatment?
The root cause of these things is radical leftist thought. However, for the past 8 years we have done virtually nothing about combating these ignorant politically correct beliefs. This is purely the fault of Bush and the current Republican leadership. They have chosen to place nearly all of its time and energy on handouts to friends and the disaster of the Iraq war instead of fighting these false and divisive beliefs.
The consequece of such beliefs is significant. We now are being encouraged to be a "diverse" society concentrating on differences rather than similarities. It is tolerable to lie about racial groups (like "whites" causing slavery) rather than tell documented history (slavery still exists in Africa, whites were enslaved at times by Africans, black-Americans often have white slaveholding ancestry -- and not always due to rape or coercive means, many "white" ethnic groups have no connection to slavery in the Americas).
More than ever, merely stating a proven fact will get you fired, blackballed and/or destroyed. Rather than fighting this, the Bush administration prospered (albeit temporarily) due to the exploitation of ignorance (like Iraq having a connection to 9/11 -- either supporting the Iraq war or being "pro terrorist," a culture of corruption and cronyism that exceeded anything Democrats have done in recent times, and spending money with reckless abandon making prior Democratic administrations looking conservative in comparitism).
Anyone thinking that you can tolerate open ridicule of a group (blaming "whites" for some alleged historical evil), prosecuting people because of racial identity (the Duke lacrosse players), deny people jobs, governmental contracts and education based upon race (which we have been now doing for about 40 years) and just continue to get away with it is either a bigot or stupid -- and perhaps both.
Fair treatment and honesty are not only good moral attributes -- but ultimately they are good for all groups and society. For example, while it may seem to benefit blacks when they get preferential treatment in being admitted to a school what it actually does (quite obviously) is that it de-values an achievement and makes the assumption that they are actually an inferior group.
Clearly one could say that "white" Jim Crow policies and discrimination post slavery are why the Tawana Brawleys of the world get traction ignores the danger that the philosphy that two wrongs make a wright can easily turn into three wrongs, four wrongs ...