African Americans for Obama

Post Reply New Topic

As a black Aspie I have to say that this is soooooooo different that a white nationalist organization. These people are usually arguing for suppressing or the justification of treating someone wrong because of their race. African Americans are just trying hold onto the rights many of them fought and died for, and some whites are afraid that that means they'll lose some rights. Well yeah, the right to treat people like s**t because they don't look like you. The Jews have done the same thing because people have treated them like s**t as well. Africans Americans chose political power over economic power to attain rights. But as far as I'm concerned the movement has been incredibly impressive. I think sometimes, some paranoid white people, are afraid that minorities will pay them back for what they did. Just a thought.

"Jews for Mitt". They spoke at CPAC and Romney has spoken before them. The Republican Jewish Coalition.

http://www.jewsformitt.org/2009/03/mitt ... -2009.html

So why would you single out black americans? Ohhh, I get it. Nevermind.

We be the Obama Youth.

ruveyn

For an atheist, all election campaigns in the US look like "Christians for [insert candidate's name here]". In case of Santorum and Ron Paul I'd add a "white" in front of "Christians". And perhaps a "male" as well.

I was going to start a big, elaborate response to this but lost interest after about 6 lines. I don't have any problem with "Black's for Obama." For that matter, I don't have much of a problem with "Whites for Santorum," although it seems somewhat unnecesarry as no president, Republican or Democrat, is going to be able to alter whites's position in society.

On an different point: Obama is mixed race, isn't he? He had one black and one white parent? So why do we call him black? Isn't he equally white?

(That was somewhat rhetorical--the answer of course lies in history. It used to be, for the purposes of the Jim Crow laws and laws during the era of slavery, that you were considered black if you had even 1/16th black heritage. Views like these have stuck in people's minds even if the reason has been long since forgotten.)

Since there is no real biological concept of human race differentiations, we define it by skin color. And as far as skin color goes, Obama is a lot darker than just about any other US president.

Besides, if we would go over technicalities then all of us are mixed race.

Oh joy. Another thread with posters lining up to:

(1) make the bigoted assertion that the group interests of Whites alone are illegitimate while the group interests of everyone else are legitimate,
(2) pick out some distinguishing fact about White people (e.g., they are a majority in the US for now - never mind that they will not be for much longer, nor that they are a minority in many US cities & states, and a minority on a world scale), and
(3) proclaim with utter sophistry that (2) implies (1)

It is laughable to see people making such an assertion as if it were a fact of nature (like gravity) rather than what is really is: political propaganda.

Fact: ethnic groups and races have always competed for power, and in today's multiracial democracies they continue to do so - only using the same techniques that have always been a part of politics: dressing up power-seeking in politically palatable language. "Minority rights" is no more about "achieving equality" than Western meddling in the Middle East is about "giving the proles the right to vote".

Can anyone maintain with a straight face that when US Whites become a minority, non-Whites and leftists are going to turn around and say "ok, you can have your own advocacy groups now"? Do you ever see leftists - with their keen interest in international issues - bang the drum for minority rights when that minority is say, Whites in Zimbabwe or Whites in South Africa? Where is the evidence that when a once-dominant ethno-cultural group in a given area loses that dominance it ushers in an era of peace and multicultural harmony? Iraq? Kosovo?

Something that can really help to illustrate the common viewpoint of non-Whites and leftists is observing their response to the question of separatism. One might think that the surest way to protect non-Whites from Whites' "enduring racism" would be to allow Whites and non-Whites to separate, but leftists balk at the idea. It seems Whites living in multiracial states not only have an obligation to reject their own group interests while non-Whites advance theirs, but Whites who would want to opt out of such a system and live among their own kind must be utterly vilified for it.

Bonus Questions:

Since the US has gone in just a few decades from a self-consciously White-dominated country to one where White identity is taboo, we might ask: how did this happen? Would a reasonable and obvious hypothesis perhaps be that White identity was helped into being made taboo by competing non-White groups - or perhaps one competing non-White group in particular?

And if we wanted to select one non-White group in particular, what characteristics might we look for? Perhaps they might be a group who were welcomed as assimilable Whites, but who never considered themselves as such and who in fact had a historical grudge against Whites? Perhaps a group with an oversized influence in the media, politics and academia? Perhaps a group with a very strong (you might say almost "religious") sense of their own historical identity and apartness?

And if critical examinations of this group's identity were themselves observed to be taboo, then we might really be onto something.

Can anyone help me out with any ideas here? No? Well, never mind. Let's go back to the liberal v conservative mudslinging.

I am a bigot against racists. And I am quite proud of that.