Obama Wins! - So What's Next?

Remove all ads!

That is exactly why saying racism is gone is so wrong. Obama got like 90% of the black vote. When have you ever seen a white candidate get more than 50% of the white vote on anything? A large percentage of blacks voted on the basis of skin color not his politics & that IS Racism, plain & simple.
You all know my stance on him yet have i ever made an issue of his race? No, as it is his politics i find offensive not his skin tone.

 

NO, Martaug. White people who voted for him did so regardless of his race. What percentage of blacks vote Democratic anyway? So that point really doesn't say a whole lot. I'm sure there were some blacks who voted for him because of race, while many others voted against hm for the same reason. The point is that we OVERCAME the issue of race enough to elect a black president.

 

I'm sorry, but I'm unclear here -- you think there were black voters who voted against Obama because he's black? Or when you say 'many others' do you mean other voters of different skin tones? I'm betting toward the latter .

Martaug's point is well taken, though -- as I have mentioned in previous threads its a disgrace when a WASP votes for a white guy and says "I voted for Bubba because he's white! I don't know squat about his positions but I know he'll do right by all the other white people!" It is also a disgrace when a black fellow says "I voted for Obama because he's black! I don't know squat about his positions but I know he'll do right by all the other black people!"

I don't care about the whole history thing, racism is racism and is not the sole province of whites.

The focus of the whole deal should be (and I would argue it WAS) the qualities of the candidate and his platform. But most people are presently focussing overmuch on race, which is sad IMHO because Obama is far, far more than "a black man".

 

LKD, African Americans vote almost as a bloc for the democratic party. In 2000, 92% of them voted for Al Gore. In 2004, 88% of them voted for Kerry. Obama's 95% was only 3% more than Gore's. The black vote alone was not enough to get Obama elected. The reasons he won are many and varied but, in the end, he won because he was able to drive more new voters to the polls. Most of these new voters were young and, yes, many of them were black, but black Americans can't elect a president on their own. After all, they only comprise 12.8% of our population, and most of them live in southern states - many of them states that not even Obama could win. Obama lost in Louisiana, for example, despite the fact that African Americans comprise nearly a third of their population.

 

Yes, LKD, I was saying "other people" as in white, espanic, Indian, or whatever voted against him because he was black. Racism is not the exclusive province of white people. Overcoming racism probably doesn't really seem like much to some people in places like Canada or Sweden, where racism may not be much of an issue, but it is a large issue for us here.

In fact, the more I think about this event, the more powerful it becomes for me. Democracy has taken another step, not just for blacks, but for all of us who embrace democratic principles. Still, some of you aren't getting the point: there's no doubt that Obama is very qualified to be president as far as those who voted for him are concerned. It's an interesting enough matter to say "people are focused on his skin color and not the man." So let me repeat myself: It is that people were able to see PAST the skin color and see who the man was that is important. THAT'S the big deal. In order for a black person to be elected in this country THAT'S the point that Americans had to advance towards for the event to actually happen.

 

The news reports and interviews leading up to the election showed that, at the very least, people (black and white) voting for Obama based primarily on his skin color were not unheard of. Personally, I agree with Martaug in that the very fact we're making a big deal out of it, and that so many black people feel it has finally made them recognized as people again, shows that we haven't progressed as far as we'd like to think. A long ways from 40 years ago? Sure. Done? No. We'll be done when Obama being the first black president really is just trivia, and anything he's really remembered for is based on achievements and results, not race.

Basically, if, 40 years from now, I see a historical bit on Obama that says, "He was the first black president of the United States of America, but what he's better remembered for is [fill in the blank]. Let's take a look at how an Illinois lawyer stormed the democratic party and led the US to [fill in the blank again]." I will say we have made real progress.

Now, I don't know if this is what Nakia is talking about or not, but I have seen, locally, a lot of racism that has gone sub-conscious, or sublimated. This goes heavily in favor of blacks and other minorities, as opposed to the overt version which typically goes against minorities, historically speaking. Still, it's racism and it's strong today.

 

See also: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack

 

Um, let's be very careful what conclusions you're drawing here. The USA probably has more population than the whole of the rest of the Western world put together so sheer statistical probability would say that they would be more likely to have a certain sort of person become leader than a much smaller country. It says zip about how enlightened the USA is compared to other countries.

 

Umm, I'm not so sure for population. Resources, maybe, space, almost certainly, maybe a few other things, but remember that as big as the US is, it's also pretty thin population-wise. That being said, I'll bet we have more blacks that most of the rest of the EU combined. That was the bit about how large of a minority we're talking about.

 

My comment was made in response to the "sour grapes" evident in some comments (like yours for instance), and was only designed to ruffle a few feathers; the historian above was really writing for those of us who live here, and who get the possibilities of where this election can take us as a nation. For me, that second part of that is what's important. I'll leave it to you to determine which countries are more "enlightened" than some others.

 

I'm with HB on this -- there is a reason we have a high percentage of specific ethnic groups in America. Those ethnic groups are present in much lower percentages in countries with a ... less tainted ... past. Minorities rarely have a say in government until they are not really a minority anymore.

But I agree with the latter part of your statement about the possibilities.

 

We don't have the same demographics as the US does. We might have a middle eastern PM before we have a black PM just because we have more people of Middle Eastern descent.

If the colour of the man's skin holds more merit than his qualification to do the job, then the only thing it pains me to admit is that America must really be the cultural armpit that people have described it to be. Blowing your own horn over electing a black president is just tasteless. I'd say that it's racist! Barrack Obama was the best candidate. His skin colour is irrelevent.

As Splunge pointed out, The Captain's hat was placed on Kim Campbell's head as the Tory ship was sinking. Jean Chretian was emerging as a political superstar, the PC approval ratings were going down the toilet, the Reform party was rising in the West to challenge the PC's in their own strong areas, and the Bloc Quebecois were also threatening to rise to prominence in the second largest province in the nation.

And I thought that Finland was on that list too...

It's not belittling it, but questioning why his skin colour is anything of any importance. You're still treating him like the token n****r in American history. If anything, it sickens me that you of all people are taking this stance.

There's a difference between a great candidate and a great leader. I still have misgivings about his plans, but he beat John McCain, making him the better candidate. Compare this to the last elected candidate. Did GWB get this much attention in both campaigns combined? He won in 2000 by the narrowest of margins and another squeaker in 2004. Considering the criticism he draws, I think he may have won not on his own merits but on the weakness of his opponents. Now if you want to belittle the candidate you tirelessly championed last year by saying he only won because he was coloured and not a Republican, be my guest. It won't bolster my failing confidence in the man who proved to be a great candidate...

It is BECAUSE racism is stupid that I fail to see why Obama's skin colour is a big deal. Just as some day there will be a woman elected president. Are you going to make a big deal out of that too?

But Obama's skin colour has NOTHING to do with the campaign he ran. He focused on the issues at hand and his proposal to solve them. Does any of that matter anymore? Did it ever matter?

Fixed.

I find that to be a very telling indictment against the American people. The fact that you feel the need to show it off to the world when you finally "get it" isn't even charming or amusing...

 

Again, reading comprehension, as often, appears to be a problem for you. Before you go spouting off about racism, you need to learn some basic reading skills. Perhaps you didn't understand my post about people here being able to "see past his skin color." It does not mean that he was elected because he was black, it means that it didn't matter to the people who voted for him.

No one said that. You show me where anyone suggested that "his skin color holds more merit than his qualifications." You can't, because nowhere does it say that in any of the previous posts. And before you go spouting off about "America being the cultural armpit," get a bit more education yourself (like a good reading class).

I'm not really sure what your mean by this in regards to electing a black prime minister. Can you explain this more fully?

Don't even pretend to go there, Gnarff.

 

I also note that South Africa has had two black presidents. That must be the most enlightened country on earth!

 

Chandos, I never thought I would go there but right now I think it is you who are having problem with understanding what Gnarff is writing. Never thought I would side with Gnarff on anything but here I am. What he is saying, and what many others are saying is that the fact that Obama is black is a big thing. That it is a big thing for you and for all the people who have been opressed and who lived through the struggles of the past might be an indicator that you might not have come as far as you would have liked. If the US was truly beyond those things then the fact that Obama is black would be a minor thing and his politics a bigger thing.

You are the one making it sound like Obama was elected due to his skin colour, not Gnarff. What would be great and what would be a sign that the problems and injustices of hte past are truly in the past would be if the colour of Obama's skin would be of hte same importance as the fact that Biden is from Delaware (he is right?). It is noted but it really is that big of a thing one way or another.

 

Well put, Joacqin. That was the point I was trying to make in my last post. Obama is the first black president of the US, and that will go down in history, but the measure of how far we've come from racism is whether it goes down in history as a major feature of the man (as it is often presented today in the news), or as a footnote, a minor historical achievement, like the first unmarried president.

 

OK, I'm about to date myself, seeing as how I can actually remember 1979 , but here goes:

What I am saying is that Margaret Thatcher, as the first democratically elected woman in Europe or North America, was a big thing. That it was a big thing for all the women who have been opressed and lived through the struggles of the past might be an indicator that Europeans and North Americans might not have come as far as you would have liked. If Europe and North America was truly beyond those things then the fact that Thatcher is a woman would be a minor thing and her politics a bigger thing.

Now granted, we're 30 years later, and the world is a smaller place. But I distinctly remember that Thatcher, as the first female elected leader in Europe was HUGE INTERNATIONAL news. Much as the same way that Obama as the first black man being elected leader of a country where blacks do not represent the majority of the population is HUGE INTERNATIONAL news.

[edit] And in that regard, Obama might be a bigger deal than Thatcher, as presumably women represented approximately 50% of the population of Great Britain in 1979. [/edit]

In many ways, women and blacks have a lot in common when it comes to matters of politics. Both were disenfranchised from voting for a really long time - both in Europe and North America - and the thought of a woman holding an elected office never even occured to many people. When a person breaks through a barrier like that, it's going to seen as a big deal, and that person is going to be remembered for breaking through that barrier for a long, long, time. Thatcher is a case in point - the first thing I think of when I think of Thatcher is not her policies - it's that she was the first female elected leader of Great Britain (and the first anywhere in Europe or North America).

I will concede that I am older than many people who post here , and that fact may contribute to my seeing Thatcher in a different light. Most posters here were either not yet born or too young to have memories from the spring of 1979.

 

Who's Margaret Thatcher?

I think it's big news anytime a major glass ceiling is shattered. Although I think it is bigger news for some individuals than others. I listen to a wide variety of music and talk shows during the ungodly long commute I have every morning. The impact of Obama being the first black president was different on the various stations. Political stations (both liberal and conservative) made it an major issue. Redneck stations like Country Station US99 never even mentioned race. The jazz stations out here (with their huge black listening audience) nearly canonized Obama.

I see Obama's presidency as a very significant event. I do not believe he was elected because he was black. I think funding was a major factor in his victory. He is well spoken. He has all the right credentials to allow him to accepted by all but the most racist groups. He is very technically savvy and ran a brilliant internet campaign. He's the first politician to really tap the younger generation (both financially and for votes).

Just as Kennedy showed the US the budding television audience was key to winning an election, Obama showed us the internet will be key in future races.

Should we be impressed with his achievements? Absolutely. But I think it's far too simplistic to just look at his race.

 

Can you point that out to me in one of my posts? Just copy and paste the instance where I commented that he was elected because he was black, and I would be glad to consider that I had misspoke in that instance, since nothing could be further from the truth. And since, I have been trying to explain in the plainest English I can muster that he was elected "despite" being black.

I'm not surprised by you taking Gnarff's side in this particular instance, since Gnarff is anti-American as well. Typically, those who have made anti-American comments in the past are the ones who are mostly, and heatedly, debating me on this isssue.

Now, the point was suggested in a previous post that a lot of black people did vote for him because of his skin color. And there was the issue of the Rev Wright and the underlying issue of race brought into the election, which many had seized upon. That had raised the same concern, that a lot of people had about how "reverse racism" and it was playing a major role in the election. So yes, the issue of race was latent in the election. Those concerns, I believe are unfounded, since the results are what they are; that many were able to get past the issue of race, and elect the most competent candidate.

I also believe that Obama tried to distance himself as a candidate from the race issue. Part of Obama's greatness is his ability to "step outside" of the issue of race, rather than being defined by it. That is of course the point that many of us, as his supporters, tried to make during the election. Those of us who voted for him recognized this in him during the course of the election.

All of that said, it is possible to "overstate" the importance Obama, as an African-American, in the election. It is possible that the media and American historians are overstating the meaning of the elecion. We can explore how that would be a serious topic for discussion. I had to hunt for this one, because it was written a while back, right after the election, by an historian:

He also makes this observation:

The event, - how the event is defined by it's message in this particular obsevation - is separate from the person. A person is too complicated to be a mere "symbol," regadless of the power that a symbol draws upon from a shared identity, such as this nation possesses. In fact, much of the power that symbols convey is from their simplicity.

Both of those points are evident here: The shared identity of Americans, regardless of background; but how complex (as illustrated by the description of Obama) our individual experiences are, and how varied they are from one another.

Nevertheless events take on a life of their own, almost personalities, which extend beyond symbolism. This is where the issue of race "gets down to it," so to speak. This is a different historian writing on the same event:

Note the last paragraph: Is he saying that Obama is better qualified to lead us because he IS a black man, the nation's "prodigal son?"

Not really. How is that different from Sarah Palin commenting that the "Real America" is in its "small towns?" They are both making the same statement from two different experiences.

I really like this observation about the "thread of history." The simple-minded would probably see this as "racist," since what joins these people in history is the "color of their skin," on a superficial glance. In fact, I suppose they could all "just be trivia" questions because of such a glance. Nevertheless, a large part of the struggle of getting to November 4th, was about "overcoming" race and "skin color." Exactly the point that I have trying to make to some on this thread. Next month is Black History Month here in the US. I suppose that since most of the people celebrated during that month have "black skin color," that to some it is a "racist" concept. But again, Black History Month is about "overcoming" race in a particular country - America.

Slavery, much like what happened to the American Indian, was something like the Holocaust of Europe, where Jewish people all over Europe were turned over to the Germans "for special handling" by "enlightened" nations. The important point, really, is that they approach a similar magnitude of human crime. It's doesn't explain much to say, "they were all just racist." The shout of "racism" is really a rather unenlightened and unsophisticated one. There is much more at work here. But this event demonstrates the struggle is progress, and in a tangible way that there is Hope in the Darkness.

Here is another historian commenting:

I agree, Barack Obama is a transformational figure, and not only because of the race issue, but because of how the concept of democracy has been advanced by this event.

This is a fourth historian, that comments on the point that I was attempting to make:

Yes, exactly.

I, of course, welcome all comments on this. As I have been remarking, this is an important event in American history. For the rest of you, I will leave it to you and your countrymen to make of it what you will.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27539416/

 

The last three posts by Aldeth, T2 and Chandos were excellent and a pleasure to read.

So for once, I'll shut up.