September 20, 2008

"Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close..."

That's the way the AP presents the results of its poll.
More than a third of all white Democrats and independents — voters Obama can't win the White House without — agreed with at least one negative adjective about blacks, according to the survey, and they are significantly less likely to vote for Obama than those who don't have such views.
Let's be careful. A poll asks whether you agree or disagree with various adjectives applied to black people in general. You give your responses. Do those responses really reveal your ordinary thought patterns? Do they tell us much about whether you apply these generalizations to specific individuals that you know a lot about, like Barack Obama?

That said, the poll does seem to have been carefully done. Some results:
Given a choice of several positive and negative adjectives that might describe blacks, 20 percent of all whites said the word "violent" strongly applied. Among other words, 22 percent agreed with "boastful," 29 percent "complaining," 13 percent "lazy" and 11 percent "irresponsible." When asked about positive adjectives, whites were more likely to stay on the fence than give a strongly positive assessment.

Among white Democrats, one third cited a negative adjective and, of those, 58 percent said they planned to back Obama.

The poll sought to measure latent prejudices among whites by asking about factors contributing to the state of black America. One finding: More than a quarter of white Democrats agree that "if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites."

Those who agreed with that statement were much less likely to back Obama than those who didn't.
There's no getting around it. If Obama loses, some people will believe that racial prejudice made the difference. Don't many people already think it's important that he win in order to prevent that harmful belief from arising? Even if he does win, some people will think he would have won more decisively if it were not for racial prejudice, but it won't matter so much without the disappointment of losing.

139 comments:

Elliott A said...

It is obvious. Obama has missed every opportunity to reassure people he himself is "post racial". He has never seriously derided the vast cultural problems within the AA community and shown how he will fix them. He did not grow up in the same environment most others have and his wife had a typical American upbringing, with hard working loving parents. When people see a group with 70% out of wedlock births, 1 in 4 men convicted of physical crime by age 25, it is no wonder that people of other races have negative impressions.

Randy said...

I'd sure like to know the ratio of people who refused to answer the poll to those who were willing to make such generalities based on race.

This part got my attention:

Other techniques used in the poll included recording people's responses to black or white faces flashed on a computer screen, asking participants to rate how well certain adjectives apply to blacks, measuring whether people believe blacks' troubles are their own fault, and simply asking people how much they like or dislike blacks.

The first-mentioned sounds like those flash experiments that have been discussed here earlier.

Deadron said...

If McCain loses, from numbers I saw at some point, it would be almost solely due to his age. If he were ten years younger, his support would be much higher.

As I recall (but hopefully someone can point to the real numbers), the impact of his age far outweighed the apparent impact of race for Obama (though you can't guess the full impact of race ahead of time).

If this is true, too bad for McCain that he didn't run ten years ago! Oh, wait...

Fred4Pres said...

I am not voting for Obama Biden but it is not because of race. It is because I absolutely disagree with them on policy. I am sure their are some racists and it has an impact, but they were probably never going to vote for Obama. So they are already accounted for in the polls. Some of them may be voting Republican although I suspect some are going third party too or not voting at all. Are you telling us that a sizable percentage of Democrats and Indies who are undecided still are not voting for Obama solely on the base of race? I do not believe that to be true.

I heard this argument last night on Real Time:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/09/20/sullivan-palin-pick-most-irresponsible-act-candidate-ever-made

dr kill said...

Ho Hum. Show me a well-done study that measures latent prejudices among Black Americans by asking about factors contributing to the state of White America. They shouldn't have much trouble finding some Black American Democrats to ask these questions, should they?
Do more than 2.5% of Black Americans vote for What's-his-name because he claims to be black?

The difference between these two numbers is the real question.

Derek Kite said...

Is it racist to believe that Obama represents a constituency? And that constituency has particular interests, needs and desired solutions?

Kinda like thinking that an Alaskan mother of 5 with a husband and disable child represents a constituency.

Or an older long serving Senator, one with and one without military background, each may represent a constituency.

I think the term is representative democracy.

The issue is that one constituency is readily identifiable. In large part anyways.

The real question is who represents the 'white trash' constituency?

Derek

Bob said...

It's the meme that the MSM and the Dems are trying to emphasize over everything else. If they think about it hard enough they know that he's too inexperienced and too liberal for about half of the US, but it's much easier to say that the people who vote against him are bigots and racists.

dick said...

Amazing that people will vote for a candidate who has done nothing to show he is ready for the office just to stop other unnamed people from voicing harmful beliefs about race? That sounds like a form of extortion except not about money. If you do this I will stop beating you. Same principle.

Let's say he does get elected (God forbid) and then bungles the job (high probability). What will that do to the beliefs of the people. Think that will be a plus for the AA community?

What the AA community needs to do is find someone who has executive experience and has shown he is a real leader. Then we would have a valid answer to the question. This empty suit is not that answer.

Brent said...

What is it called when Barack Obama will receive the votes of more than 88% of Black American voters?

AJ Lynch said...

Like I said, McCain should run an ad showing the many many MSM types saying Obama's glaring weakness is too little experience and an almost blank sheet of paper for his resume.

Re this poll, thankfully the election will not be a close one (IMO) so we won't have that race-based hand wringing.

chuck b. said...

Are there any polls out there trying to measure the effect liberal white guilt has on keeping him aloft?

The Drill SGT said...

This is effectively a push poll. It ignores a number of factors.

1. there are a fair chunk of whites and all the blacks who are voting for Obama BECAUSE he is black. Ann for one. Would any (ANY) first term Senator with a weak record and shady friends be in the lead unless he was black? I'm sorry, Obama is NOT JFK.

2. Race is not the biggest factor driving Democrats and independents away from Obama. they skip over the polling that says that more Dems have competency issues with Obama than race issues nd many dont think he can deliver change.

3. note that only 25% of all Dems characterized blacks as "Law Abiding"

Chip Ahoy said...

The whole line of questioning demonstrates to me the pollsters have a bone up their bums about race. I'm offended at the start.

Therefore I shall turn the argument. If Obama wins the election, it will be entirely due to race. Racists will have elected an unqualified candidate in order to prove to themselves and to the outside world they're not racist. They will have failed, and the gigantic unprecedented effort will have been for naught.

Understand that's just an argument. I could live equally well with either candidate. They both have unique advantages.

The Drill SGT said...

reminds me of a North/South Racial analogy. forgivethe stereo typing, it like the mugging version

White Southerners dislike blacks in general, but love the blacks they know personally

white Northerners love blacks in theory, but hate the ones that live near by.

AJ Lynch said...

Sgt:

Re #3, since numbers don't lie, that means most Dems are racists :).

I am kidding people. Don't go crazy Alpha or DTL or Integrity.

dbp said...

I suspect Obama will gain a lot more from race than he looses. Here is why. There are just not very many true bigots left in the country, but most people are wedded to a kind of 'affirmative action lite'. What I mean by this is that most people who had to choose one of two candidates for a job will give the job to the AA if both applicants are reasonably equal in ability.

Just a thought experiment: Does anybody think that a white version of Obama would have had any chance at even gaining the nomination? He beat-out Clinton because his overwhelming majority of the AA vote were more than Clinton's modest majority among WW.

Brent said...

Drill Sgt.

As someone who has lived in the American South, North, Mid-West, and West, I agree with your assessment.

However, I have found the mid-west to be the most overtly prejudiced of all. Doesn't mean all mid-westerners by a long shot, just that the overt kind - "not in my neighborhood" said out loud - is greater in the mid-west than any other region.

gcotharn said...

I looked at the AP sidebar chart of questions. The questions demand respondents stereotype black people in either positive or negative terms. I find this poll demand: look at persons and judge them positively or negatively according to skin color, to be prejudicial in and of itself. I would refuse to take this poll. I find it offensive.

I suspect the poll results have more to do with culture and politics than with skin color. If I were forced at gunpoint to take this poll, and I came to the question: Whiners?, I would say to myself: most black persons vote Dem, most Dems are whiners, ergo most black persons are whiners. There would be no other way to answer such a query, yet my answer would have nothing to do with skin color, and everything to do with politics and culture of the left. The only racial component of my answer would be my knowledge that most black persons vote Democratic - which is not a racial belief, but rather a fact of American politics.

That poll is bogus, and a bunch of nothing, and is a true example of how our nation (and our media) undermine ourselves via shallow thinking.

ricpic said...

Whites aren't allowed to draw conclusions about blacks based on a lifetime's experience. That would be racist. Case closed. So shut up. And do your talking in the voting booth.

exhelodrvr1 said...

ajlynch,
"since numbers don't lie, that means most Dems are racists"

You may be closer than you think, considering the lower expectations for minorities that Democratic policies promote.

rhhardin said...

Misgivings you tube at 1:20

UWS guy said...

As I detailed in a earlier post this week. I had a conversation with yellow-dog democrats who's yellow-dog democrat mother was voting republican because Obama is black, who otherwise would have voted for Hillary.

Someone mentioned "white guilt". What's the opposite of that phrase?...pride perhaps?

CSPAN2 right now has book TV on, the author is talking about his book, "Neo-Slavery" the re-enslavement of blacks between the civil war and WW2.

Patm said...

Obama cannot close the deal. He couldn't close it against Hillary, either...she had to basically stop the fight in order for him to win.

I don't think it's racism, or if it is, it's a very small part of it. Obama's numbers at this stage of the game are similar to Kerry's and Gore's in the last two elections, and when you factor in how incredibly LIBERAL he is, compared to them, his similar numbers actually say he's doing pretty well.

But if he loses they are going to need to blame something...so they'll blame "racist America."

It can't possibly be because the guy, when asked about the AIG buyout and the most dramatic and serious economic crisis of the 80 years, voted "present" both times.

Puh-leese. It's not racism, but they'll use that for the excuse. And that will sow something very ugly.

Spread Eagle said...

We'll get one insight into the effect race has here on November 5 when we compare what the final polling data with what the actual election results are. That'll give us an idea about how many people were deceptive about their true voting intentions.

NoBorg said...

"if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites."

Wouldn't you automatically believe that if you actually thought blacks were equal? If you truly believe, as I do, that black people have the same intelligence and talent as any other group, aren't you forced to conclude the above? And yet the poll uses this question to find out if you are a "racist".

Make no mistake: Most white liberals deep down believe black people are idiots. That is the bottom line reason why they support affirmative action, and also the reason they have the constant need to accuse everyone else but themselves of racism.

Look what journalists - white liberals almost to a man - did to smear the reputation of black Americans during hurricane Katrina. It was not their intention to do so, of course - it was just a matter of them "seeing" what they expected to see.

Stinger Assassin said...

Neo Slavery....Oh man...Here is the author's website...former WSJ reporter.

Basically, in the South after the War criminal codes were rewritten so that black guys could get picked up and 'sold' to companies for the most trivial offenses. This is one way in which the South built its industrial base in the late 1800s and into the early 1920s. The author describes coal mines in Alabama that must have been worse than any WWII death camp. The tortures and abuses he describes are unspeakable.

UWS guy said...

From CSPAN: "Until 1941 it was the policy of the justice department not to prosecute acts of alleged slavery in the south"

He goes on to detail a letter by an old woman to the president of the united states to help free her nephew from slavery in Atlanta, her letter was ignored.

vbspurs said...

If Obama loses, some people will believe that racial prejudice made the difference. Don't many people already think it's important that he win in order to prevent that harmful belief from arising?

And if Palin is part of the ticket that loses, shouldn't women feel depressed that it was because she was a woman? Clearly, America would be highly sexist.

Will we cry and moan should Obama/Biden win, and say, whilst black people by extension won TWICE, we lost TWICE with Hillary and Palin?

Or will Liberals tell us it had NOTHING to do with Hillary or Palin's gender, but that people rejected their type of politics?

Maybe, do you think, that would be the reason if Obama is rejected too? Because of is politics?

Of course it is.

But those who want to imagine that race is the overriding, even the ONLY possible reason Obama was rejected would never give credence to the extremism of his liberal politics.

Personally, I hope he loses but not by a lot -- in both popular and electoral college votes.

Because if HE wins, then we'll have 4-8 years of people opposing his policies being called "racist!" every day, from editorials to the man on the street.

Let a Conservative black politician be the first black President. They would never think of applying the same standards of racism to him/her.

Cheers,
Victoria

Stinger Assassin said...

UWS--

This book totally blew my mind when I read it a few months back...

Here is an excerpt.

One Alabama coal mining company, a subsidiary of US Steel, alone 'processed' tens of thousands of black men over a five decade period, with many working and living (repeat: living) underground in darkness and with many driven to self-mutiliation, madness, and suicide.

--

The letter you refer to:

On July 31, 1903, a letter to President Theodore Roosevelt arrived at the White House from Carrie Kinsey, a barely literate African American woman in Bainbridge, Georgia. Her fourteen-year-old brother, James Robinson, had been abducted a year earlier and sold to a plantation. Local police would take no interest. “Mr. Prassident,” wrote Mrs. Kinsey, struggling to overcome the illiteracy of her world. “They wont let me have him. . . . He hase not don nothing for them to have him in chanes so I rite to you for your help.” Like the vast majority of such pleas, her letter was slipped into a small rectangular folder at the Department of Justice and tagged with a reference number, in this case 12007.4 No further action was ever recorded. Her letter lies today in the National Archives.

Bissage said...

A deeply intellectual person, I spend much of my waking hours trying to reconcile my belief in evolutionary psychology with my belief that it’s immoral to be racist.

I’m pretty sure I’ve made zero progress.

Still, I’m very much looking forward to the day I learn to stop worrying and love da bomb.

Word up.

Yo.

** throws gang sign **

Revenant said...

Asking what adjectives apply "in general" undermines the idea that the ideas are racist. When you look at a whole group of people as a group, certain overall trends can be identified that many, possibly even most, of the individual members of the group don't exemplify.

For example, as a *group* blacks really *are* demonstrably more violent than whites; they commit most of the murders and a disproportionate share of other violent crimes. So in general, blacks really are more violent than whites. That's simple reality.

When that simple reality starts shading into racism is when you start assuming any given black person you meet is violent, start claiming that the violence is due to their race, etc.

Synova said...

I suppose the actual voting will show how much difference there is between what people say and what they do but I don't see how it will show anything useful about racism. I'm of the impression that people lie all the time in exit polls when all the candidates are white and tend to report votes for the Democrat when they actually voted for the Republican. So this time, if they report they voted for the Democrat and actually voted for the Republican, what will that prove about race?

Nothing.

For the commenter who talked about constituencies... it's a false question because it's based on assumptions that aren't true... and that is that constituencies are based on physical characteristics.

And this may be one of the ways that Palin and Clinton really needed to BOTH be in this... Who represents the constituency of women?

And we see that it's a false question. There is no constituency made up of women. Palin and Clinton are both women but they aren't the same and really don't represent the same citizen's concerns or issues.

A lot of people would have liked to see Condi run for president. If she were opposite Obama maybe we'd see the problem with behaving as though black people make up a single constituency.

Or Latinos.

Or Moose-eating Lesbian Eskimos.

We elect people because we feel they have the right ideas about how to manage the economy, or foreign policy, or hopefully both.

Take two Moose-eating Lesbian Eskimos and one may be Marxist while the other favors Ayn Rand.

John Lynch said...

Uh, why not use the polls asking how people will vote to predict how they will vote? There's plenty of those, it seems to me.

Lem said...

MSNBC David Gregory aired a clip of Michelle Obama saying, "People shouldn't make a decision this time [emphasis mine] based on, 'I like that guy.' Or, you know, 'She's cute.'

http://tinyurl.com/54kx7d

There is some dispute about whether Michelle was talking about Palin or herself, but regardless there's no getting around it.

If Obama loses, some people will believe that who was cuter made the difference.

As a lifelong republican ;) I really don't know if I'm voting for McCain because he is white.

I do know I'm voting for someone fit for the job and not against anybody cute or otherwise.

Nobody ever called me an against voter.

After all, "this is our moment . . . this is our time"[emphasis mine], Barack Obama said in a June 3 speech after wrapping up the Democratic presidential nomination.

In the end it's just you and your maker in that voting booth and if you are an atheist it's even lonelier.

The Drill SGT said...

I'm of the impression that people lie all the time in exit polls when all the candidates are white and tend to report votes for the Democrat when they actually voted for the Republican. So this time, if they report they voted for the Democrat and actually voted for the Republican, what will that prove about race?

certinly true of union card carrying Reagan Democrats who voted for the gipper and went to work th next day and commiseratd with the union shop steward when that f'ing actor won.

that wasnt racist either

Mike said...

i love this site! very intelligent comments [w/ no rancor!] all I gots to say is- every major city- and 'minor' major city= [i.e. Boston- worc/spring/lawrence/ MASS.] has been controlled by democrats 4 the last...umpteen yrs./ mayor/school boards/ city councilors- All dems/ they have failed the black community and should be held accountable-yo! they pimpin' u!

rcocean said...

"There's no getting around it. If Obama loses, some people will believe that racial prejudice made the difference. Don't many people already think it's important that he win in order to prevent that harmful belief from arising? Even if he does win, some people will think he would have won more decisively if it were not for racial prejudice, but it won't matter so much without the disappointment of losing."

So what? These "some people" already think America is "racist" and always will. People vote for POTUS for all kinds of stupid reasons, looks, background, voice, etc. What could be more stupid than voting for someone because they were a POW 30 years ago, or they aren't Mormon, or they're young, tall, or have a cute kid? Voting on skin color can't be any worse.

Obama got nominated because he was 1/2 black. He'll get 95 percent of the AA vote for the same reason. If 5 percent vote of non=blacks against him for the same reason, who cares, live by race card die by the race card.

vbspurs said...

Welcome, Mike. Kick the tyres for a bit and see if you like Althouse.

Cheers,
Victoria

Simon said...

I suppose that if an election is close enough, one can misleadingly but accurately attribute the result to the motivations of any subset of the voters that is greater than the margin of victory. For example, did anti-semitism cost Al Gore the 2000 election? Even if there were only three hundred anti-semitic voters in the entire country who would have voted for Gore but for Lieberman being on the ticket, if they were all in Florida we could accurately attribute the loss to their motivations. But an accurate statement doesn't always tell thee whole story, which is why witnesses are not sworn to merely tell the truth, but the whole truth, so far as they know it.

Colfax Girl said...

Weeks ago, a neighbor and I were discussing the election. When I told him I was thinking of voting for McCain, he asked me "do you think that's because you're racist?" I kid you not. His first response was to assume that I'm a racist. He couldn't fathom that a person like me (white, female, highly educated & living in the most liberal neighborhood in Denver) could possibly consider McCain. As such, I'm a racist.

I didn't know how to respond. Still don't.

vbspurs said...

Colfax Girl, start thinking of a response.

When you don't respond, and turn the question around to them, they will fill the void and ruin your reputation with others.

erniecu73 said...

Victoria, I have been contemplating the same idea. If a black conservative or libertarian runs, and the left opposes him, what will be the justification? What will be the real reasons behind it?

I really hope we can take race out of the realm of taboo social topics and start talking frankly about it. Or at least I hoped so, when this campaign started. I am not sure right now, and least with "studies" like this.

erniecu73 said...

colfax girl said...
Weeks ago, a neighbor and I were discussing the election. When I told him I was thinking of voting for McCain, he asked me "do you think that's because you're racist?" I kid you not. His first response was to assume that I'm a racist. He couldn't fathom that a person like me (white, female, highly educated & living in the most liberal neighborhood in Denver) could possibly consider McCain. As such, I'm a racist.

I didn't know how to respond. Still don't.

2:10 PM


If you don't respond, they will fill in the void with whatever fits their image of you, or worse, of the group to which they assume you belong. It is generally the second choice. Bring back the topic with your neighbor, don't let him dwell in the comfort of his own prejudices and misconceptions.

Peter V. Bella said...

When Harold Washington was the first Black to run as a candidate for mayor of Chicago several years ago, the City was more racist and racially divided than it is today.

Everyone thought that just any white candidate could beat him. Guess what? He won. In every ward and neighborhood he garnered enough votes to win the election.

It stunned the Democrat party; they were gearing for a massive loss.

Peole can say all kinds of things in polls. They make no difference. There is only one poll that counts; the one in November.

Lem said...

Fortunately we can rest assured that these kinds of polls cannot be used as an exhibit of reversible error.

Unless it's close and Obama takes it to the Supremes again.... and they part the baby, you know... it's Obama's turn, their time now.

Personally, I hope he loses but not by a lot -- in both popular and electoral college votes.

I hate to disagree with you Vic, but as well intentioned you might be, I don't think we can afford another close call specially this time.

Mike said...

thank u! I grew up during busing- and I watched the madness! I'd say- 4 a nice discussion- it's crazy! you're taking poor black kids- and poor white kids- and re-arranging chairs- why don't you throw ALL that money into specific schools? [I need a grief councilor!] Luckily- I found out I was a racist- long time ago- now we have-A-school-buses- all the gas that they suck-[ur tax dollars]-B-inner city kids gettin the shaft-and C- and me- paying 4 it w/ a perplexed look-
hey- do me a favor- next time y'all have a walk 4 [insert cause here]- walk down Blue Hill Ave.- take a garbage bag w/ u/

jdeeripper said...

If Obama loses, some people will believe that racial prejudice made the difference. Don't many people already think it's important that he win in order to prevent that harmful belief from arising?

If Barack Obama was Brian O'Bama the red haired first term senator from Idaho who for 20 years was a member of a church with a less than diplomatic, "aryan nationsish" style and had no resume of achievement would he have beaten Hillary Clinton for the nomination?

What percentage of blacks would have voted for him? Would blacks have guilty feelings for not voting for him?

Deep seated pathologies of White racial self hate and guilt inform ALL forms of White liberalism on race. But it's a guilt about one race most of all. Never Asians or Latinos, rarely the American Indians.

It's about one group and one group only. Blacks. And it's not due to slavery, lynchings, segregation.

It's due to the White "liberal's" animal fear of black genetic, physical and hormonal superiority. The White liberal feels a discomfort that he is in a kind of unearned social superiority over blacks yet he feels a nervous physical inferiority which he resents. The resentment creates the guilt and the need to relieve it. To atone for it, to be liberated from it.

And that's the role of the Magic Negro. Save me Martin, save me Sidney, save me Tiger, save me Colin, save me Oprah.

I've live in urban black America most of my adult life and one of the biggest white/black differences is capacity for guilt/anxiety.

White people are overwhelmingly haunted by a kind of emotional awkwardness even when they are in casual meetings. When speaking, dancing, socializing blacks are much calmer and smoother. More confident, more extroverted.

It seems like most White people can barely socialize without alcohol in their system to help with this emotional awkwardness.

White folks just lack that natural "swagga". In fact the very embodiment of a swaggering confidence in white people is seen as a threat, a sin. Holding on to anxiety and guilt and fear of social exclusion due to sin is a big part of being White or "acting White".

And White folks LOVE to find those sins in other White people. Look at European history. The persecutions, wars over trivial religious dogma.

So Obama fits nicely in the narrative of White people in need of black salvation. You have a white villain (conservative, gun toting, bible clinging Walmarters who think Jesus was a White man), a black victim (all black people incl. OJ and Willie Horton) and a white/black liberal combo hero (liberal, "well meaning" White Democrats, the monolithic black community, Jews, gays, journalists, intellectuals, students, rabbit food eaters) who saves the day and make the world better.

So I think White guilt toward blacks and a need to "make up to them" is just part of white folk's goofy natures. Most white people are as dorky as hell.

And Barack Obama is the cool, guilt free, anxiety free black man they want to submit to.

Save me Barack.

Colfax Girl said...Weeks ago, a neighbor and I were discussing the election. When I told him I was thinking of voting for McCain, he asked me "do you think that's because you're racist?" I kid you not.

Let me guess, White guy?

Peter V. Bella said...

Like I said, McCain should run an ad showing the many many MSM types saying Obama's glaring weakness is too little experience and an almost blank sheet of paper for his resume.

After he was called a LIAR, there are those who would call him a racist.

You are not allowed to tell the truth about Obama, just like you were not allowed to tell the truth about Hillary Clinton.

Spread Eagle said...

I'm of the impression that people lie all the time in exit polls when all the candidates are white and tend to report votes for the Democrat when they actually voted for the Republican.

Yeah, so? If it happens thataway "all the time" as you say, that would then be your baseline. If the gap is more than what is normally the case, a racial compnent can be inferred.

One caveat here is what the Dems tried to do in 2004, and whether they'll try it again. They skewed the exit polling data to falsely show a big Kerry victory in the early eastern polls, ostensibly to try to suppress Repub turnout in western states. It also served to give them cover to make the straight-faced claim of vote fraud because the real vote was so different from what they claimed the exit polls said. They have every incentive to try it again.

vbspurs said...

If a black conservative or libertarian runs, and the left opposes him, what will be the justification? What will be the real reasons behind it?

Ernie, I think everyone agrees that racism is a very serious issue in America. We're not free of racism whatsoever, despite the positive inroads into reducing it since the 1960s.

But racism is used as a cudgel to batter Americans who are not racists, to advance certain issues because everyone knows the worst epithet anyone can be saddled with is "racist".

I find that deplorable, and worse, lacking common sense.

People will push back and do the opposite silently, not because they are racists but because they sense they are being morally blackmailed.

Curiously, I don't think this will play a role in the Presidential Election of 2008.

I genuinely think that if there is to be a black President, it will be this year much more than any other, because he's the perfect LIBERAL black politiian, and the antithesis of George Bush in every way.

It's a statement choice, by both blacks and whites.

For those of us who see him as an utter cypher, and a dangerously liberal one who doesn't hold Americanism high in his agenda, his race is almost non-existent.

I would vote for Michael Steele in a heartbeat, and possibly Condi Rice too.

Cheers,
Victoria

Lem said...

I would rather let people, who seemed to be predisposed on way or another, continue flying against the wind than have Obama put his finger against the wind when having to decide what to do about Iran.

Synova said...

"I didn't know how to respond. Still don't."


Welcome to the dark side. ;-)

The snotty (and fair) answer would be, "Do you think you're voting for Obama to hide your racism?" But likely not helpful.

BTW, did Michael of the "you're all racists for complaining about Obama's lying Spanish language ad appealing to racism" melt down get banned for it?

Geraldine Ferraro got accused of racism for pointing out that Obama's prominence in the primaries was due to the same sort of thing that got her on the ticket as the VP... neither she, nor he, are white men.

Liberals aren't used to being accused of racism every time they make an observation or disagree... conservatives *are*. It's the standard response from anyone who doesn't think your reasons for your opinions are adequate... and they are NEVER adequate. If your reasons were adequate then you'd be a liberal.

Synova said...

(Lying in polls or exit polls...)

"Yeah, so? If it happens thataway "all the time" as you say, that would then be your baseline. If the gap is more than what is normally the case, a racial compnent can be inferred."

No it can't.

Because the chances of the baseline being constant is zero. There are other influences and they would have to be controlled for in order to eliminate them. And really... even if the reason for lying is that you tire of being accused of racism for no reason, your actual vote might not have a racial component whatsoever.

ricpic said...

"Swagga" has a lot to do with being just plain dumb.

vbspurs said...

The snotty (and fair) answer would be, "Do you think you're voting for Obama to hide your racism?".

Do you know the what makes me smile about your remark, Synova?

That it shows you are a white person, because you are presuming that the person asking that question isn't black.

It is a common human practise to project our own realities unto others when writing. :)

P.S.: Just yesterday, I went to my favourite coffeeshop. I told the chap (an affable Jamaican with dreads) that I went to the Obama rally. He was going off and off on Bush, so I had to stop him, and say.

"Wait, I don't want you to misunderstand, I'm not for Obama. I just went for the 'happening'".

"So you're...on the other side?"

And the way he said it, you could tell he was thinking, wow, she's a racist. But black people rarely actually say that to a white person. You can see the wheels turning, though.

The only people that shame those about racism, face-to-face, are white people to white people.

Synova said...

I donno... my husband told me that the black guys at basic training laughed at the whites because when the white boys went to attention they pinched up their butt-cheeks.

I'm not sure that's evidence of racial uptightness... but I'm pretty sure that there wasn't a single white boy there who was relaxed enough to have ever admitted he noticed what happened to another man's butt-cheeks.

Lem said...

Wait a minute...

How long are we going to wait for Jesse to cut Obama's nuts off?

His cutting it close.. ;)

I was hoping Obama would have to go on the DL.

Another unmet promise from Jesse.

vbspurs said...

Wow, this is an interesting development about my reactions.

I have Fox News on behind me, on low volume. I turned around as they are showing Obama in a Jacksonville, FL rally.

Just 24 hours ago, I was one of those people standing in front of him. I heard that odd Cartman/MLK Jr. accent and cadence, lilting around that well-worn stump speech.

So that's another reason why going to that rally was a good idea, and for which I thank you guys again for motivating me to: you can lower the volume from now on, and not feel you're a racist. ;)

Cheers,
Victoria

Synova said...

"The only people that shame those about racism, face-to-face, are white people to white people."

Probably true.

(my other response was to the "swagga" remark.)

But would a black person actually *say* to a white person face to face that their vote was due to racism? I don't think so. Did your Jamacan with dreads say so? Or did you assume he was thinking it?

I am assuming that Colfax Girl's neighbor was white, you're right about that, but I'm not certain I'm simply projecting my own race on an unknown actor.

vbspurs said...

White folks just lack that natural "swagga".

You've never been to Eton.

Cheers,
Victoria

erniecu73 said...

Everyone's a little bit racist...

vbspurs said...

But would a black person actually *say* to a white person face to face that their vote was due to racism? I don't think so. Did your Jamacan with dreads say so? Or did you assume he was thinking it?

Assumed! ;)

I am assuming that Colfax Girl's neighbor was white, you're right about that, but I'm not certain I'm simply projecting my own race on an unknown actor.

I was just teasing, Synova. :)

But you missed your chance to tease back that I too was unconsciously race-conscious!

Because lookit:

Who is to say Colfax is not black, and that her friend isn't black? Moreover, that you too are not black?

I suppose my point was too cute.

What I meant to say is that people are more likely to raise the spectrum of racism when speaking to a person of their own race.

Cross-racial accusations are frought with the possibility of violence, whereas within one's own race it is just frought with the need to shame.

go4broke said...

Why hasn't the question of reparations been asked of Obama....is he for it or against it...and if elected will he support it?

vbspurs said...

P.S.: Ugh, I hate talking about race.

Race is a social construct human beings have invented for physical differences.

Race is biogically nonexistent. At most you can talk about clines or some such anthropoligical crap like that.

Spread Eagle said...

No it can't.

Sure it can. Google Bradley Effect, Wilder Effect, and Occam's Razor.

Peter V. Bella said...

These polls are meainingless now. They are looking to play the blame game later. If Obama loses, they can say "aha" we told you so; you're racist.

vbspurs said...

They are looking to play the blame game later. If Obama loses, they can say "aha" we told you so; you're racist.

No, they are using racism as a way to shame people into voting for Obama, before the fact.

It's insidious.

erniecu73 said...

Victoria, again we agree.

:)

Peter V. Bella said...

vbspurs said...
P.S.: Ugh, I hate talking about race.

As do I. I also do not think about it. The problem is it is shoved into our faces everytime we turn around. Once in awhile they throw religion in their just to mix things up.

erniecu73 said...

vbspurs said...
They are looking to play the blame game later. If Obama loses, they can say "aha" we told you so; you're racist.

No, they are using racism as a way to shame people into voting for Obama, before the fact.

It's insidious.

3:08 PM


Yup, "either you vote for him, or you are *GASP* RACIST!"

They believe they are clever. I am sure many people can see through it, but it is also very convenient for many others.

KLDAVIS said...

Is there any way to control for the 'Bradley Effect'? If I had to guess, I'd put it at 1-5%, with the number being on the lower end of that range in redder states and higher in blue/purple states.

Given the relative dead heat that exists in most of the swing states, if it is at all significant, it turns the electoral college into a landslide for McCain.

Cedarford said...

Brent said...
What is it called when Barack Obama will receive the votes of more than 88% of Black American voters?


"Justifiable enthusiasm for one of their own!" No reverse racism. No, siree! Blacks are incapable of being racist. Just ask Rev Wright.
=================
Revenent - Asking what adjectives apply "in general" undermines the idea that the ideas are racist. When you look at a whole group of people as a group, certain overall trends can be identified that many, possibly even most, of the individual members of the group don't exemplify.

For example, as a *group* blacks really *are* demonstrably more violent than whites; they commit most of the murders and a disproportionate share of other violent crimes.


I take the opposite belief.

People in such a poll will in large part automatically reject negative group descriptions because they have been indoctrinated and punished since kindergarten about "ignorant stereotyping".

So I believe "negative trait" responses are substantially undercounted.

A more honest answer might have been obtained if the trait was couched in "Is this trait seen in the black community to greater or lesser extent than in other groups?"

Then I think you would have far greater numbers responding to the poll questions or other traits:

1. Yes, violent crime is a bigger problem amongst blacks than whites.

2. Yes, blacks are better at sports involving running and jumping than whites, Asians.

3. Yes, blacks tend to be poorer students than whites. But whites in general tend to be poorer students than Asians and Jews.

4. Yes, Hispanics and Asians tend to be harder workers than blacks. But that would not influence me when interviewing individuals for a job.

It is possible to give negative answers about a race or group and NOT skew honest answers by the respondent inhibited they might be seen as racist or bigoted by providing such a generalist answer IF the poll allows them to respond they keep an open mind on each individual they encounter.

And framing a poll in such a way would allow people so wrapped up in PC dogma that they openly lie rather than "look bad" to inhabit a different poll category as "answering dishonestly".

Such as?

1. There is absolutely no physical reason why Asians or whites should not dominate sprinting. "I agree strongly!"

2. There are much more of them than black people, do you believe each race has no difference in physical or mental abilities, so it must be lack of good sneakers?

"I agree, blacks must have better sneakers"

===================

Simon - For example, did anti-semitism cost Al Gore the 2000 election? Even if there were only three hundred anti-semitic voters in the entire country who would have voted for Gore but for Lieberman being on the ticket, if they were all in Florida we could accurately attribute the loss to their motivations.

I believe that was the anti-semitic old Leftist Jewish retirees from NYC that claimed they accidentally cast their vote for Pat Buchanan.

==================
Colfaxgirl - When I told him I was thinking of voting for McCain, he asked me "do you think that's because you're racist?"

A suitable response might be, perhaps more politely than I would put it: "Whaaaaat! Why would you say that, accuse me of that? Explain yourself!

After all, the friend only has a few possible explainations other than the most likely explaination (That he is a passive-aggressive Obama supporter attempting to morally blackmail you to voting his way by an accusation "you might just be a racist" if you don't back his guy.)

His alternate explaination #1 -

1. Any candidate running against a black man is a racist, and all their followers are racist. That includes Hillary, Joe Biden as well as Mccain.
Your response might be to inquire- Is he saying that all those people, their surrogates, their backers are racist?

2. Only McCain is a racist. And half the country (McCain's polling) with him are also racist. Biden and the Clintons weren't racist.
Ask him to explain why McCain should be called a racist, then why half the country is racist just for their decision to pick him over Obama, in the absence of any other info.

* - You might also wish to take the offensive and ask if the people that voted against a far blacker skinned man with more black ancestry and a legacy of slavery - in favor of a half-white candidate - were racist for doing so? (70% of Illinois voters picked Obama)
* And you may ask if it was sexist of him to reject Hillary, and if a future contest pits a white against a hispanic or Asian against a black - which candidate does he think you are obligated to choose?

ricpic said...

Race is biologically nonexistent.

Another towering lie, courtesy Vicky.

Lem said...

Race is biogically nonexistent.

"The origin of the species" would probably be an unpublishable book today.

Is that good or bad?

Gahrie said...

Why all this talk about Obama being Black? As far as I am concerned he's much more of a White man then he is a Black man.

(I still ain't voting for him)

Alex said...

I'm shocked that AlphaLiberal hasn't weighed in yet. They are always the ones that deny the facts about black crime. You point out that blacks are wildly disproportionately criminals, and they either say:

* it's a lie
* or it's white america's "legacy of racism" that forced them to commit the rapes, murders, knifing, shootings, muggings, etc...

Peter V. Bella said...

Is Charile Rangel a racist, a sexist, a moron, or all three?

Synova said...

Shame is a powerful and important tool for socialization in cultures but how much can it be used now for this?

I don't know.

It depends, I suppose.

I'm inclined to assume other people share my feelings on the matter even when I know they don't and I long ago saw that accusations of racism were meaningless. But... shame requires singling a person out as different... what's wrong with "you", you're out of step with others. There really is no shame in a whole lot of things that used to be shameful simply because they've become commonplace. (It hardly seems fair to want Bristol shamed when she hasn't done anything that we've not been told is inevitable human behavior that is going to happen no matter what.)

Even the *appearance* of shameful behavior is an issue and people will try to avoid it.

Which is something I don't think people understand about historical racism either... people could be shamed about it because the general understanding of nearly everyone was that black people were equally people (and equally loved by God, etc,) and that something should be done to stop various inequities and injustices.

To shame someone it's counter productive to insist that everyone is racist. You shame someone by insisting that almost no one is racist, so what's wrong with you? But when all whites are always racist no matter what because they belong to the oppressor class even if they hold not one prejudicial thought toward any race... well then, where's the motivation to avoid even the appearance of racism? You can't win and you KNOW it's not you.

Will shame work (and I do agree with victoria that there is a overt attempt to get people to vote for Obama by implying they're racist if they don't) when it's not based on identifying the shamed person as being alone in their shame?

I don't think it will.

Jim said...

I agree with both points of view - that it is both prior excuse making in the case of an Obama loss, so they can say "See, we told you so!", and that it is an attempt to shame people into voting for Obama to prove that they are not.

I think they are likely to succeed on the first point, but probably more likely to fail on the second. I think only in the blue states does that kind of liberal race-baiting work - where people are susceptible to "white guilt."

However, in the battleground states, pretty much everyone has agreed that it's going to be the blue-collar folks who will wind up making the difference. I highly doubt that these people are likely to respond well to attempts to shame them into voting for a black man to prove they're not racists: I would argue, in fact, that the opposite is true.

I think of it as the "country music phenomenon." There are wide swaths of this country where country music is by far the most popular kind of music. As even the most casual listener can tell you, there is a strong vein of individualism and not caring what people think about your lifestyle that runs through it. It's much easier to convince a soft liberal that he is guilty of some conscious or unconscious racism, than it is tell a country music fan that he's something he doesn't believe in his heart that he is.

Personally, I'm all for the media writing these sorts of stores because I think they're likely to backfire spectacularly...

LRalston said...

Michelle's father was a Democratic operative, he was a Dailey Alderman. Anybody know anything about that position?

Lem said...

One of the perps driving the recent economic crisis was uncertainty. And yet it is uncertainty one the key principles w/o witch or economy could not work as we know it.

To some race is uncertainty masquerading as certainty and vice versa.

Jim said...

peter -

Since Biden has told us that volunteering to pay higher taxes is patriotic, then by his definition we can at least say that Rangel is unpatriotic...

rhhardin said...

Deep-seated moron misgivings could also cost Obama the Presidency.

We need a black who is not a moron, or a moron who is not a black, to decide which prejudice it is.

Alex said...

BTW since Biden's "paying more taxes are patriotic" happened, Obama has gained 2 points in the polls. Americans DO want to pay more taxes.

madawaskan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
PatCA said...

The poll is just another example of the MSM trying to make everything about white racism instead of the issues. Otherwise, wouldn't they have polled black people, too, to find out about their reasons for voting?

Duscany said...

If Obama loses the media will blame it on white racism. But this ignores the fact that many whites and virtually all blacks are voting for Obama because he's black. The whites think an Obama presidency will provide them with racial dispensation as well as heal the country's racial scar. Blacks are voting for him simply because, well, he's black.

Derek Kite said...

Synova: Nonsense.

One example, generalizing. The black community sees crime fighting efforts in one way. Somewhere around 20% of their males do time in prison. Horrible disruptive toll on the community.

The white city dwelling community sees the 20% in prison as the solution to high crime that threatened them.

Not to debate the issue, who is right or wrong, but there are two different constituencies with two different needs, fears, suffering two different consequences from the same action.

So, on that issue alone, is voting or not voting for someone who represents the interests of a different constituency racist?

Another example. When Palin showed up, there were two reactions. Some felt that as a women, with children, with disabled child, hockey mom, pro life, etc. that she represented them. Others felt, for the exact same reasons that she didn't represent them.

Is that sexist? Prejudice? No. Different constituencies.

How the feeling is expressed can be racist, sexist or just plain ignorant. But if someone doesn't represent your interests, they don't.

Derek

Glen said...

Regarding the side bar data in the AP article: Is it an optical illusion or is the word LAZY rendered in larger case characters than all the other words and phrases?

John Lynch said...

I hate it when other people psychoanalyze deep seated racist tendencies, the only symptom of which seems to be voting Republican.

What's the code word for bullshit?

Freeman Hunt said...

I don't care how it makes anyone feel, I'm not going to vote for the Marxist.

The idea of voting Obama because other people might think less of this country's race relations is nothing more than superficial peer pressure. "What will they think of me? What will they think of us?" Who cares? The only question should be "Who is the best candidate?"

Synova said...

Generalizing is your problem Derek.

At the national level there really can't be constituencies that way because the answer to problem that disproportionately plague the black community don't obviously have a particular answer that is represented by Barack Obama's politics.

Just as the answer to women's issues, as they exist at all, isn't liberal politics.

vbspurs said...

Freeman Hunt wrote:

The idea of voting Obama because other people might think less of this country's race relations is nothing more than superficial peer pressure. "What will they think of me? What will they think of us?" Who cares? The only question should be "Who is the best candidate?"

This can be summed up very neatly by:

Stuff White People Like: #8 Barack Obama

"Because white people are afraid that if they don’t like him that they will be called racist."

vbspurs said...

One example, generalizing. The black community sees crime fighting efforts in one way. Somewhere around 20% of their males do time in prison. Horrible disruptive toll on the community.

The World Socialist Website puts it at 28%.

"The social and political conditions facing the most impoverished and oppressed sections of the working class. More than a quarter of US inmates in mid-2002—a total of 596,400—were black males between the ages of 20 and 39. This means 12 percent of black men in their 20s and early 30s—more than one in ten—are in jail or prison. The report calculates that over the course of a lifetime, 28 percent of all black men will have spent some time behind bars."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/apr2003/pris-a10.shtml

(The reason I don't hyperlink is that I don't wish to soil my hands with Socialism in any way. Ironically, that's also the reason I am not voting for Obama)

Cheers,
Victoria

Duscany said...

I wish the pollsters would give that racism survey to Michelle Obama so we could see what she thinks of whites.

chickenlittle said...

I just don't buy the guilt. I think we're beyond that now, or we should be.

A dear friend of mine, a Russian immigrant, and who grow up under the Soviets, convinced me, during one of those all night feasting/drinking fĂȘtes, of the evils of socialism. His theory, (and he didn't claim to be original) was that it was all based on "permanent guilt".

Peter V. Bella said...

We need a black who is not a moron, or a moron who is not a black, to decide which prejudice it is.

What we actually have is a Black and White. No wonder we are so confused.

Simon said...

Duscany said...
"The whites [who support Obama] think an Obama presidency will provide them with racial dispensation as well as heal the country's racial scar. "

It's an interesting metaphor, because scars don't heal. Personally, I'm not inclined to worry about that; there is a lot of scar tissue in the American civic consciousness, and it isn't disabling. The underlying wound was dressed by the Civil War, the Civil War Amendments, the court's final acceptance of them in Brown and its progeny (particularly Cooper and Parents Involved), and the Civil and Voting Rights Acts. It has healed since then, notwithstanding race bating by the Democratic party and its allies.

Peter V. Bella said...

Somewhere around 20% of their males do time in prison. Horrible disruptive toll on the community.

So, we should not imprison Black males. We should give them all probation and send them home to stop the horrible disruptive toll on the community. Right? Riiiiiiiight!

erniecu73 said...

Peter, I don't believe that was the intention behind that quote.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Who conducted the poll and came up with the "adjectives" to choose from...Maxine?

This is a push poll, cut and dry. And what about the Iowa primary?

Ron Fournier's AP is a joke.

Crimso said...

"Colfax Girl, start thinking of a response."

Try this one: "Since when are Marxists a race?"

Zachary Paul Sire said...

But this ignores the fact that many whites and virtually all blacks are voting for Obama because he's black.

Really? A fact? I'd love to see the stats on this.

So, if it were a white Democrat running, would you say that all whites and many blacks would be voting for him because he was white?

The key is that's he a Democrat. Democrats vote for Democrats.*

And this lame poll just brings out peoples' lameness, end of story.


*Except for Lady Lynn Forester De Rothschild

blake said...

Race is biologically nonexistent.

Another towering lie, courtesy Vicky.


Quite obviously, there is no "Caucasoid" gene or "Negroid" gene, and geneticists point out that there is way more variability among those identified as a particular race than between races.

And, of course, much of what is perceived is race isn't race at all, but culture.

This doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't "race" as a biological concept, but so far, the concept has had, at best, limited value.

Or such is my understanding.

garage mahal said...

Many will vote for Obama because he is black, but very few if any will vote against him because he is black. Okie-doke.

Colfax Girl said...

Crimso - I love that response & it is the one I will use! It made me laugh out loud. This has been a really interesting discussion to follow. Thanks!!!

Peter V. Bella said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter V. Bella said...

garage mahal said...
Many will vote for Obama because he is black, but very few if any will vote against him because he is black. Okie-doke.


Okie-doke!

PatCA said...

"If Obama loses, some people will believe that racial prejudice made the difference. Don't many people already think it's important that he win in order to prevent that harmful belief from arising?"

That belief is already there. Every time there is a drop in Obama's popularity, articles like this appear. The only thing that will cure it is for people to stop listening to the Jeremiah Wrights of this world.

Synova said...

Oh, please. Most people who vote for Obama will vote for him because they are Democrats.

Though his race helped him get the nomination in the same way that Palin helps McCain far more than sticking another old white dude on the ticket would have done.

Most people who don't vote for Obama will vote for McCain because they are Republicans.

The loonies will vote for Ron Paul or whoever the Libertarians have up this year. Someone will probably vote for Nader.

Of the independent and swing voters the determining factors might be if they view Obama as hyper liberal or have always liked McCain (as the Republican base never has) or think one will be more likely to do what needs to be done about the economy even if *everyone* hates him for it and which one will go along to get along, who will take national security seriously and who will not, who will be most effective diplomatically and who will increase the esteem of the US in the eyes of the world and heal racial divisions... in other words, some people will vote for Obama because of his race.

Apparently there are some people who will not vote for him because of his race but I don't know that it's useful to count those hoarding virgins and DIY dental kits in some compound in Montana. It's not as though they'd vote for the Dem ticket anyway. I find it hard to believe that the same people who *would* vote for Obama's politics would refuse to vote for him because of his race.

So he gets far more votes for his race than he loses.

vbspurs said...

"permanent guilt"

Socialism, yes.

But Communism is based on "permanent envy".

Cheers,
Victoria

vbspurs said...

Or such is my understanding.

When I was in First Year Med, I didn't know if I was cutting into a white male cadaver's body, or a black male cadaver's body. The organs are the same.

Race is a discredited scientific construct.

It only exists because human beings love to differentiate, separate, and compare.

Cheers,
Victoria

bleeper said...

With all due respect, VB, race does exist. Treatments that work for one race do not work for others - look at pegolated interferon use in treating hepatitis C - very big differences in results.

And, as the old, probably racist song went, if I get anemia, it's not going to be sickle cell. And my step son will not get acne rosacia. That's life.

blake said...

Just so. And something comedians have known--for years.

Roost on the Moon said...

I'm white. I was out registering voters today in St Louis. I was wearing an Obama T-Shirt. An elderly (maybe 70, 75) man said to me:

"Between you and me, he's the wrong color, but he's got my vote."

Not post-racial yet, but we'll take it.

vbspurs said...

And, as the old, probably racist song went, if I get anemia, it's not going to be sickle cell. And my step son will not get acne rosacia. That's life.

Yes, and Bob Marley died of undetected skin cancer. He was black, but he forgot he was the illegitimate son of a Scotsman.

I think most people know what I mean when I say race is a discredited scientific construct. Or perhaps we can look up Dr. Mengele's notes to remind us.

Synova said...

"Between you and me, he's the wrong color, but he's got my vote."

"Not post-racial yet, but we'll take it."

Yes, and that's HOW to get there. I just really can't see anyone who would have voted for him if he were white, refusing to vote for him because he's black. If they switch their vote for that reason I think they probably have been voting Democrat when they didn't really want to and just haven't figured out how to stop.

Sort of like those "lifelong Republicans" who are going to not vote for McCain just because of Palin.

bleeper said...

VB - I don't disagree with you. As a social construct it has outlived its usefullness, yet it blunders on, blind and unknowing, causing much misery.

It can even cause voters and reporters to ignore facts and not ask questions. Blind and ignorant. Not a good way to go through life, if I may paraphrase Dean Wormer.

Cedarford said...

blake said...
Race is biologically nonexistent.

Another towering lie, courtesy Vicky.


Agreed. But Vbspurs is operating off ideology, not her limited biological knowledge many years back before she went into being an investment advisor.

Her claim that without skin, you cannot anatomically distinguish between races, or at least she couldn't, is belied by physical anthropolists and forensic examiners that can tell at a glance - with high confidence - what race a skinless or rotting corpse belongs to. With X-rays and examination of pelvic bones, skull, dentition, and shin-femur meaurement ratios - 96% confidence.

Not to mention DNA confirms what race a person is.

And that the genome project has shown significant time of evolution as humans left Africa and experiences rapid evolution and retained mutations the "stay at home" blacks missed.

Race is a social construct human beings have invented for physical differences.

Race is biogically nonexistent. At most you can talk about clines or some such anthropoligical crap like that.


Race is no more an artificial human social construct than any other taxonomic classification.

If you wish to argue that genus, phylae, species are also "artificial social constructs" as are types of stars, then I have no objection to your argument that, in effect, no scientific classification system has any validity because it is reliant on human observation and judgement.

Vbspurs - I think most people know what I mean when I say race is a discredited scientific construct. Or perhaps we can look up Dr. Mengele's notes to remind us.

Your going to the Nazi defense for your argument - that any scientific theory must be discredited if the Nazis believed it. Which means, I guess, that ballistic missiles and jet planes must also be discredited scientific constructs.
Besides, the Nazis weren't even the inventors of racial theories and eugenics which were developed as full theories long before the Nazis used it. Nor were they the 1st political movement to stress how paramount race and blood was. The main Nazi theoretician admitted he got much of his racial theory from earlier Zionist texts and speeches on the matter.

===================
Synova said...
I donno... my husband told me that the black guys at basic training laughed at the whites because when the white boys went to attention they pinched up their butt-cheeks.

I'm not sure that's evidence of racial uptightness... but I'm pretty sure that there wasn't a single white boy there who was relaxed enough to have ever admitted he noticed what happened to another man's butt-cheeks.


Kind of interesting you subconsciously find it acceptable to frequently refer to white soldiers as "white boys" - but would never dream of of calling black soldiers of similar age "black boys". To you it must be "black guys".

I generally corrected any black soldier I heard in earshot saying "MF'ing. (etc.) white boys". I addressed them as "black boy" and if they took umbrage to that - arguing that racial grievance gave them the right to address white comrades as "white boys" and "it don't matter" - then if he kept it up, he would be black boy to me...That quashed the "boy" talk by such black servicemen about other races fairly effectively.

Once with some persistant, very loud and aggressive baiting continuing despite objections - I had to have the NCO put it to the assembly if it should be acceptable for all to call each other "boys"? He and I would have no objections, but that meant it was officially OK to refer to black men as "black boys". Otherwise, no more "white boy" or "AZN boy" or "Mex-boy" talk from blacks.

The "boy talk" stopped.

William said...

I would have voted for McCain over Hillary so I don't think my vote is racially motivated. However, I have a number of misgivings about Obama and their etiology is partially racial. I could accept Obama's inexperience more readily in a white politician. (Look at the affectionate acceptance offered to the equally inexperienced Palin.) What bothers me about his inexperience is that there is no way of knowing that he is who he says he is. I absolutely believe in Palin's s authenticity; Obama's I am not so sure about.... He claims to have transcended racial prejudices. Most of the commenters here make the same claim and then go on to expound their biases. I just don't think it's possible for anyone to be free of racial prejudice....Here are my prejudices: I am wary of black politicians. Too many of them have their finger in the till. When caught, they are never criticized by fellow blacks. I have never heard a black Democrat say anything tolerant of Clarence Thomas or say anything critical of Sharpe James or Kwame Kilpatrick. This includes Obama. I don't think that he's an honest broker.

vbspurs said...

Who knew. Jimmy the Greek was right.

*under breath, idiot*

vbspurs said...

I have never heard a black Democrat say anything tolerant of Clarence Thomas or say anything critical of Sharpe James or Kwame Kilpatrick.

William, I am staggered by your honest opinion prior to this. I wish more people had the guts to say something like this, without reeking of racism, just pragmatism.

But just to say that some black people do open up privately. They have to me, at least. One friend earlier this year said something to me like, "I don't understand why people don't like Obama. It's not like he's Kwame Kilpatrick."

And I also lurk on black blogs. There is criticism there too. But you are right in saying that they otherwise circle the wagons.

On PBS, there was a special on a biracial Frontline producer. Her white mother was being interviewed. She was asked something like, "Do you notice any difference between whites and blacks, given your experience in living so intimately with both?".

And she replied, "Yes, blacks are much less judgemental than white people."

She meant that as a positive, but when I heard it, I realised this is also what keeps a lot of black from moving forward.

Sometimes, when you know you are surrounded by bad people, even if they are your own blood, you have to walk away for your own good. They WILL drag you down.

It's Christian to forgive, yes. And that accounts for much of their attitude. But think of your kids' welfare, if that makes you feel better.

Cheers,
Victoria

Duscany said...

Zachary Paul Sire: "The [reason why blacks are voting for Obama] is that's he a Democrat. Democrats vote for Democrats.*

In the primary blacks had a choice between Hillary and Obama, two candidates with virtually the same positions. Yet 90% of blacks went for Obama. Of course the reason was race. That was the only difference between them.

vbspurs said...

Bleeper, LOL, I looked it up. Animal House, eh?

Dean Vernon Wormer: Zero point two... Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

Duscany said...

Synova: "So he gets far more votes for his race than he lose."

You're exactly right. Obama's race has been a big plus factor for him. Geraldine Ferraro was exactly right when she said Obama wouldn't be where he is today if he wasn't black. She was crucified for that. Yet she only said what was obvious to anyone who gave the matter a second's thought.

Seven Machos said...

Let's be clear: the issue here isn't Republicans. Me and my fellow Republicans were never going to vote for Obama or virtually any Democrat. The votes that will put McCain over the top will be by Democrats who will vote for McCain.

Face it, lefties, yours is the party with the particular racists who are going to decide the election.

Rose said...

There are people in the coffee shop who say America is not ready to elect a black president. I disagree. America was ready. We were ready, as evidenced by the huge crowds and overwhelming support Obama received initially.

It is Obama and his Reverend Wright who are not ready. They are the racists today. But people are even overlooking that.

Obama's problem is that every thing he says, though it sounds good, means nothing, there's nothing behind it, it's empty. "It's time for a change." Nothing. "Now is the time to move forward." Nothing. I should go back through some of his appearances - I'll bet I could find 20 in every interview. Vacuous sentences. They sound good. You know what it means. TO YOU. It's inspiring.

But he is an empty vessel with a mirrored facade, people see their own hopes and dreams and high ideals reflecting back at them, and they imagine that he shares those hopes and embodies those dreams. They say things like, "When he is elected, he will do this...." When he is elected he will do that." Now, there is nothing whatsoever in his record in office that shows he is even aware of those things, much less that he ever actively made any move towards advancing any of those things they imagine he will magically do. No bills introduced. Nothing.

But is we say any of that - we are racist.

I am tired of it.

blake said...

In the primary blacks had a choice between Hillary and Obama, two candidates with virtually the same positions. Yet 90% of blacks went for Obama. Of course the reason was race. That was the only difference between them.

No, no, that's not true at all. There was very little policy difference between them, but as we all know, there's a lot more to policy than being President.

Clinton has nothing of Obama's charisma (which cuts both ways). Clinton's advisers and the machinery of her campaign are completely different. And I don't think Clinton went to the sexism charge the way Obama goes to the racism charge (even then). Obama was much more successfully pitching "hope and change", and seeming like an outsider--the very thing that excites many Reps about Palin.

The way they would get things done and, indeed, whether they could get things done, is debatable.

In addition, just as a "Bradley effect" voter might not be acting out of racism, those voting for Obama due to racial considerations might not be doing it because they themselves are racist, but because they felt he had a better chance of winning, due to others' racism. In other words, rather than being a liability in the eyes of the country, perhaps they thought it was an advantage.

downtownlad said...

What is it called when Barack Obama will receive the votes of more than 88% of Black American voters? - Brent

I dunno. What percentage of the black vote did Kerry get? What percentage of the black vote did Gore get? What percentage of the black vote did Bill Clinton get?

Blacks overwhelmingly vote for the Democratic party, because the Republican party is racist. It's not out of the ordinary for Obama to get 90% of the black vote. For you to suggest that blacks are voting for other reasons - is - well - racist.

Rose said...

But IF we say any of that - we are racist.

IF not is - dang typos!

Revenant said...

There was very little policy difference between them, but as we all know, there's a lot more to policy than being President.

Certainly Obama is more charismatic, but why would that have caused such a marked difference in the voting along racial lines? Do blacks just like charismatic politicians that much more than white people do?

It makes more sense that the voting patterns were race-based.

Adjoran said...

Of course it is racist to vote for anyone other than Obama!

Why else would someone vote against a candidate with no relevant experience, with a history of radical and corrupt associations, cloying to a mantle of "reform" without ever having been a reformer, lying serially, and never having held the same full time job for as long as three years in his life (while asking for a four-year contract)?

I certainly can't think of any reason other than racism to vote against Obama.

I just can't think of a single reason to vote for him, either.

Alphonse said...

Q: Who would express doubt that quite a few votes will be distorted by racism?

A: Republicans.

Alphonse said...

Q: Who would hope that not many votes would be distorted by racism?

A: Democrats.

Q: Who would hope otherwise?

A: Republicans.

blake said...

Certainly Obama is more charismatic, but why would that have caused such a marked difference in the voting along racial lines? Do blacks just like charismatic politicians that much more than white people do?

It makes more sense that the voting patterns were race-based.


Race-based, quite possibly. That's not the same as racist.

Maybe whites were more likely to overlook Hillary's negatives and blacks more likely to overlook Obama's negatives--not out of racism, but because we tend to excuse the familiar.

Why do black people go to Tyler Perry movies and white people not? White people are certainly comfortable with black entertainers, so racism seems an unlikely cause.

Maybe it's because white people and black people relate to different things, and Obama is especially skilled at relating to blacks in a way that Hillary couldn't be with whites.

Also, with whites being a larger population, they have less of the intense common experiences of a highly concentrated minority group.

Here's another, related angle: A Presidential candidate is expected to deliver his own state. It's not racism--is it statism? Is Arizona going to go for McCain because it's high time we had an Arizonan in the White House?

Commonality of experience--feeling you know someone--is a big deal in electing a President. Blacks voting for blacks isn't necessarily a different dynamic from voting for the guy you want to have a beer with.

Previously, I believe blacks turned out for Bill Clinton, rather than Tsongas or Brown. Race-based? Or did Bill just seem familiar?

eaglewingz08 said...

Where are all those studies of African American voters showing that they are not voting for McCain/Palin because they are white? If it weren't for african american racism and ageism and sexism would we posit that McCain/Palin would win the election in a landslide?

Ronsonic said...

Does a poll that asks whether you associate certain adjectives with blacks mean any damn thing without asking whether those adjectives apply to other groups for a comparison.

I'm a cranky old conservative I think everybody is lazy, unreliable, selfish and so on.

X said...

BTW since Biden's "paying more taxes are patriotic" happened, Obama has gained 2 points in the polls. Americans DO want to pay more taxes.

not true as demonstrated by the fact of a budget deficit. obviously americans aren't paying more taxes than they have to, even though they supposedly "want to", which they could if they wanted to so much.

unless you yourself overpay your taxes, what you are really saying is that YOU want OTHER americans to pay more taxes. congratulations, you're a democrat.

blake said...

Besides which, polls lag events by up to a week.

If people really wanted to pay more to the government they would do so by paying more to the government.