Obama Wins! - So What's Next?

Remove all ads!

Holy crap! Unless you're lying about your age, you were only 4 or 5 in 1979. When I was that age, I wasn't even the least bit aware of what was going on in politics. My only concern was making sure I got my daily allotment of cartoons.

 

Well, this has all gone way out of proportion. First, being called anti-american brings me back to the good ole Bush days, if you aint with us you are against us.

Secondly, you started all this Chandos, you started by bringing up what a huge thing it is that a black man was elected president. No one has denied that it is a big thing, what people have done is to say that for them it is not a big thing that Obama is black and that in the best of world it wouldn't be. I personally think Obama himself has handled the entire race thing as good as it could have been handled. As for glassceilings, of course it is a grand thing to see them shattered but again, what people have been saying is that in their minds there has been no glass ceiling, that for them there was nothing needing to be shattered that does not say that there wasn't one in society as a whole. What you might construe as mine and Gnarff's anti-americanism (love that word) is the hints that there was a ceiling that needed to be shattered was not a good thing.

Ah, Thatcher, you pretty much answered yourself Aldeth. 30 years is a long time and a lot has happened in that time(not enuogh, not nearly enough anywhere). I remember Thatcher from when I was a kid, she was scary and the fact that she was one of the first women at the very top of political power is probably the only positive thing there is to say about her.

 

Actually chandos, your last few posts before this one came off as rather . . . well, almost as if i had written them(fairly antagonistic & a wee bit aggressive). It did seem you were assigning meaning not actually there. Sorry

I just absolutely hate that phrase! It wasn't/isn't "reverse racism" it was simply racism.
Racism

Nowhere is "racism" assigned to any specific "race" so the term "reverse racism" is actually racist, "they aren't able to be racist, so they resort to reverse racism"(I'm not explaining this as well as i want but i hope you are getting my meaning)
It seems as if when people say reverse racism that they are implying that only whites are capable of expressing the hatred inherent in the worst kind of racism, so they have to have a seperate term for non-whites.

Other than that, great post!

@splunge, i remember thatcher getting elected but i was like 11 & all my teachers were talking about it(hmm, they were all women except for the gym coach).

 

No, I didn't. Gnarff commented that it would be "just a trivia question." THAT is what started it. But it's just silly to try to fix a blame on how this topic flared into what it is now. I have two five and seven year olds who often go back and forth over "who started it." Nevertheless, this is what typically happens in a Gnarff "debate." He throws off simple one-liners and states the obvious, and believes he is being profound. Everbody ends up with insults and accusations. But now you are "comparing" me to Bush? Well, that's fine, Joac. I have no hard feelings towards you. And I believe your "anti-Americanism" is superficial and not very deep.

For my part, I am only trying to make you understand my point. It is an historical event, and as someone who studies historical events, beyond being a "trivia question" but seeks to draw meaning from it, I was hoping to, at some point, engage in a real dialogue about this election, rather than what sometimes happens during these kinds of topics.

Thanks, Martaug. I have commented before, that as a former sales guy, black and Hispanic people have refused to buy from me because I am white. The perspective of racism, that you bring up, is often the most ignored in that respect, that it does impact people on a personal level.

 

I actually turned 5 the month she got elected. The reason I have such a vivid memory of the event was I distinctly recall getting our first color TV then, and turning it on, and that being on the news. I will concede that I probably wouldn't have remembered the event if it was not accompanied by the "event" of getting a color TV. So no, I wasn't into politics when I was 5.

Ah, but what does it tell you that after all that time what Thatcher is still most remembered as being? It is not her policies!

And see Splunge - joacquin is several year younger than me and he remembers Thatcher (not that he could remember her being elected as he wasn't born yet).

 

Oh I remember her from her politics, I think she did a pretty good job of overshadowing her gender with her politics. Dismantling the entire British welfare system and stamping out much of the organised labour unions in hte country is enough to make you forget that she was a woman.

 

Yeah, but she was PM until 1990, and joaqin would have been about 9 or 10 at that time. At that age, I was aware of politics (didn't understand it, but at least I knew it existed).

OK, on topic, and from a quote in Chandos's previous post:

Thats' actually an interesting point. I wonder if Obama's ability to make his run for President not about race had anything to do with the fact that his family roots were not the same as a "typical" black American's ancestry?

 

I'm always amazed at how quickly all the good things she did were undone.

 

Which ones? If you mean the labor unions, as far as I know they have never regained the prominence they held before Thatcher. In fact, I would say she has done what few politicians had - she shifted the entire political dialogue towards her ideas. Tony Blair considered her one of his most influential politicians, and he was the leader of the Labour party.

 

You big kidder Splunge - it just hit me now! We all know that when you were 4 or 5 dinosaurs still roamed the earth.

Not to turn this entire debate into a critique of Thatcher's politics, but I will say this for her influence, and the significance of being the first elected woman to lead a European or North American nation: I tried to think of who immediately preceded and succeeded Thatcher, and I could not come up with the answer. I looked it up, and as soon as saw the answer as James Callaghan and John Major, respectively, I was like, "Oh yeah". But the fact that I couldn't come up with it on my own tells you all you need to know about how significant Thatcher's election was - at least in the eyes of Americans.

 

Colin Powell could have been President. The first black President. A lot of whites stated that they would vote for him. He would have run, I think, as a Republican and had a very good chance of winning. He broke the ice for Obama and I believe should be given credit for this.

We no longer have the lynchings and signs saying "No colored allowed" but I have been told by blacks of stores locking their doors in their faces and other similar incidents.

Prejudice still exists and without vigilence could raise a very nasty head. We maintain freedom and tolerance by being vigilent not by patting ourselves on the back and saying "look how great we are". Yes we have come a long way and will go even further as long as we keep trying.

 

Powell broke from his party to support Obama, and took a lot of criticism for doing so. I have to give him credit for being a man of princples in that regard, rather than just following the party line. I can understand his crossing over, because I have voted for different party candidates depending upon which one was the best choice for the given moment. I voted for Reagan, and voted for Clinton, not because of ideoloy (because one was a Republican, or one was a democrat), but because I thought that each one would do the best job, given that particular situation.

 

Then what teh hell took so bloody long? It's like someone celebrating the fact that they finally learned to use the potty. But when they're 38 years old, what's the big deal?

But why is it such a big deal what colour his skin is? It seems like the last week and a half, that's all anyone can talk about? Is it that boring waiting for him to embarrass himself?

I did quite well in the English classes I took in College. They taught me to think for myself. Are you now lamenting that decision? You must assume that I'm some illiterate redneck. But remember that when you assume, you make an ass out of both you and me. And frankly, I don't need to remind you that I do well enough at making an ass out of myself--all I need is the presence of a beautiful woman to ensure that...

There's just not as many black people in Canada as there are in the US. I'm talking about percentages here. Maybe because slavery was abolished in 1791 up here...

Pretend hell! I did go there. I accuse the American Media of holding him up as a token n****r to make the US look better. Do they lack confidence in his abilities to improve the nation's standing among the rest of the world on his own policies?

Okay, that line had me questioning my reading comprehension. But I've read it several times and the words haven't changed...

Exactly! His skin colour is irrelevent. It's what he does while he's in office that matters. I still have my reservations, but he did hand John McCain his ass last November, but evidently I am accused of backpeddling when I so much as try to give credit where credit is due...

You missed that point entirely. You didn't mention his skin colour until the inauguration came closer. I would expect, from your tone and criticism of the previous administration, that you'd be above the hype. But only upon the inauguration did you start talking about him being black. It's as if the discussions of the past several months no longer existed. I feel that does Obama an injustice.

WTF?

As he should have.

And how cruel the irony that that's all they're talking about--at least until his first post-inaugural interview is on an Arabic Television Network...

That's what I have been trying to say. That's why the fact that Obama is the first black president of the US will be a trivia question. His skin colour is not the big deal that the Media is making it out to be.

If that's what that was, and you're blowing your own horn about it, then I was too generous with my comment about a "cultural armpit"...

Actually, I did suggest that they're making too big a deal over his skin colour. I feel that it is unfairly detracting from the real issue--what kind of leader will he be? While Chandos claims to set the bar higher because he personally endorsed him (at least here, probably to anyone else he talked to about it too), the rest of the nation may have set the bar rather low considering the opinion of who Obama was following. What's important is what he does with the next four years, not the colour of his skin.

I would imagine that looking down the barrel of a tank would be a rather enlightening experience, but you'd be coming around to the view of the guy in the tank. I don't see that as a fair comparison.

My comment was in response to the people making such a big deal out of his skin colour, and ignoring his policies. I was trying to bring perspective back to the topic...

It must be awful lonely up there on that pedistal. Do we look like ants from up there?

 

See, here's the problem, Chandos. You seek to draw significant meaning from this event, the election of the first black US president. That, by definition, demands that racism is still strong. If racism were gone, then the first black US president would be nothing more than a historical footnote. Obama's achievement is only a big thing (based on his race) if you presume that there are significant forces working against him (again, based on his race). Personally, on a national level, I'm really not sure where racism stands today. It's certainly not gone, but certainly not as strong as it once was, either.

 

That would be correct. Is racism strong? That's an issue with a very different perspective now. The event proves that racism may finally be on the way out, maybe. Will Canada now elect a black prime minister? According to Gnarff there are not enough black people there to vote for him/her (I guess he is saying that white people there won't).

Good. Maybe you can use some of that classwork to learn how to read my posts (and posts by others posting here as well).

Not really. I have nothing against ants.

Edit: The link I posted illustrates at least some of the thoughts of African-Americans about the election.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27420831/

 

The color of Obama's skin did influence some people to vote for or against him but I think the major influences were dislike of Bush's policies and the rotten economy. If McBain had distanced himself from Bush's policies I think he might have done better. The majority of US citizens are moderate. We want peace, jobs, homes, a few luxuries, good education for our children, affordable health care.

I think the News Media blew the race thing out of proportion. Since they didn't find a skeleton in Obama's closet they latched on to his skin color. As if people couldn't see that Obama's skin was a bit darker than the average white person. :sarcasm intended:

My guess is that future historians will have a a line or two regarding his being the first black president and go on to judge what he has done. A lot of us are hoping that he will improve our forge in relations.

added: The above doesn't mean I don't think we have racism but we aren't unique in that. Vigilence is the price we pay for freedom and freedom includes tolerance.

 

History is often times a very personal affair and we tend to see it through the lenses of our own experiences. The event will not be seen within the context of the Obama presidency itself, but within the context of the Civil Rights movement in general. That particualr aspect of the election may be seen as a continuation of a process that began with Lincoln and Douglas, and went on through the efforts of Rosie Parks, JFK, LBJ and MLK.

Certainly Obama will be judged on his performance. But that's just stating the obvious. History is seen from many different perspecives: For instance, there will be the textbook history that is taught in public schools; there are survey classes taught in college; specialty classes for historians; bestsellers for a general readership that has an interest in history; and then there are biographies and autobiographies. And I'm just touching on a few perspectives of the many avialable that could be placed under the study of "history" (I'm sure there will even be a "trivia" question for the unegaged masses). The point is that the different context of an histoeical event will be treated according to the emphasis that a particular historian will give to it, depending on the historian's controling theme.

For example, Lincoln can be seen as both liberator and opperssor (and has been treated as such). A Confederate perspective is often treated as that Lincoln acted illegally and as a tyranical despot by keeping the South in the Union; while another historian may see the issue through the topic of abolition and as the advancement of equality and freedom. And yes, I think most eveyone will agree that slavery is "stupid."

My real point is that an historical event, like the Obama presidency, is not static, but fluid, depending on the perspective from which it is viewed. Just the issue of performance will have its own perspective, depending upon who is rating the "performance."

Nakia - I didn't want you to think that this comment was directed at you in anyway:

It was just a general statement regarding the fact that all presidents are judged on that point to a large degree.

 

Chandos, when you have lived as long as I have one learns not to take things personally or one goes crazy. I can think of only two comments made made in the Alleys that I did take personally and yours is not one of them.

Of course it should be obvious that Obama will be judged on his performance. What I fear is that we will expect miracles from him and he is after all only a human being not the Second Coming. I agree that his election is a another step in the Civil Rights Movement and an important one.

I do not disagree with you, Chandos, historians are people and as such are often biased. What I wish is that I could visit this world in 100 years and see what is written then about now. Obama carries a double load because he is seen as representing the Black Community as well as the USA people as a whole. He was willingly taken on a tough job and needs all the support he can get.

I'm not sure if I can express my feelings adequately but I don't want Obama judged as a Black president. That isn't fair. If he is successful it won't be because his skin is dark and if he is not successful the same holds true.

Kennedy was the first Roman Catholic president but do we judge him as a Roman Catholic? I don't think so.

 

Exactly! The point that Kennedy was a Catholic is just a trivia question today...

 

No, sorry. It is NOT a trivia question. But then maybe it is in your country. In 2004 we had a candidate for prez, John Kerry, who was also a Catholic. It was a pretty big issue here, because an issue was made of his religion and his stance on birth control and abortion. There was a somewhat serious debate about how his religion conflicted with his role as a politician. Also, we have not had a Catholic president since JFK and that was some 45 years ago.

To continue on, it was a topic in a class I had in college, at the University of Houston, in a political science class, regarding religion and politics (and why it's hard to elect someone who is not a protestant in America). So it is not treated as a "trivia" question in this country, but maybe in your country....