On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 20:07:02 -0400, jeff wrote:

On 4/6/2010 9:53 AM, wrote:
I don't know exactly why - probably the "Frank" character telling a young "Bar"
about "the facts of colored life" combined with the WP's daily email
"briefings," but these recent three pieces in the WP brought the recent
"discussion" involving Obama's bio to mind

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040202347.html

and/versus:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...rc=nl_opinions

(Note - the latter was in the WPs daily "Opinion" email labeled/linked as
follows (the complete link tag):

"Eugene Robinson
The Forgotten District
Where's the help for the black underclass?"

combined with this article linked-to in the news brief email:

Obama to discuss needs of black community
President Obama will sit down Tuesday with about 20 black religious leaders,
including representatives of the major African American denominations, in the
second White House meeting in three months to discuss the needs of the black
community.

(the full article is
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...rc=nl_headline)

IAC, since, apparently, the only two people in the world who consider Obama to
be bi-racial are Obama and me, why isn't the election of a
"black"/"African-American person as the President of the United States at least
some indication that "blacks" have come a long way, baby...brother....? And
maybe it should indicate that views attributed to "Frank" aren't anymore
appropriate than David Duke's (or whatever loon(s) are leading the sheetcutters
these days), nor are those of opportunists like Jackson and Sharpton or "guilty
white liberal" paternalist "PC"ers in a modern, progressing world...

And an aside to jeff - thus far, IMO, Obama's "job" with regard to racial
"traps" has been pretty good. He appears to have avoided most of race nonsense
from all sides (the Gates ****up being an exception, but at the end of the day,
not that big a deal), but I do disagree with his refusal thus far to fully (and
accurately) address his heritage as the product of a white "American" mother and
a "black" "African" father. I don't particularly fault him for it - a pol has
to, well, pander to their base(s) - but, again IMO, he could do a world of good
for the whole racial issue, at least insofar as "regular people" (non-public
figures without a "public" agenda) are concerned - if he were to address it
forthrightly and head-on. And I'm not talking about might appear to be
"popular" with a particular base, I'm talking about what's right.

R




why is that a "what's right" issue? because it will satisfy you? it's a
looney issue to me...a baiting issue that serves no national or
political purpose. what makes it important to you? why and how will it
help "regular people"?

When I say "regular people," I mean people of all colors with no "public
racial(racism) agenda," ala Al Sharpton. If tomorrow morning, the US woke to a
basically racism-free county, ol' Al would be out of a "job" - nobody left to
bait, put a guilt trip upon, or otherwise stir up. But more importantly, what
would be right is that "regular people" of all skin tones might see - no, "see"
isn't the word - actually start to believe that skin color simply doesn't
matter. The idea that, for some, a "black" guy got elected as POTUS being a big
deal, some positively, some negatively, simply feeds the whole cycle. I
understand that it was and will be that way, but it doesn't mean that I have to
agree with it. It's like the Sotomayor thing - "the first Latina!" or "a
friggin' Latina..." depending on the slant. Why wasn't the first left- or
right-hander a big deal? The first blue-eyed person? If the physical
characteristic somehow related to the performance - the first blind NASCAR
driver - it might make more sense. Or even the first "free" black person after
the EP or first woman after "suffrage," but the whole idea of it being an issue
one way or the other in the 21st century seems, well, bluntly, ****ed-up. And
on that, too, I understand that again, it will be that way, but also again, it
doesn't mean that I have to agree with it or just merely accept it.

imo, he wrote a book addressing his heritage adequately. what is lacking
in the book that you need said?

Oh, come on - he was, what, 20 or so when he was contracted and 25 or so when it
was published, and he himself stated plainly that he was a work in progress, so
to speak. The life-views of any 20-something are hardly those of a mature
adult. Are you suggesting that his viewpoint then should be his viewpoint for
the rest of his life? I'm not sure if he originated the phrase, but such an
idea puts me in mind of PJ O'Roarke - he who isn't a radical at 20 has no
heart/soul and he who isn't a conservative at 40 has no brain/sense. IMO, the
book and the ideas/feelings expressed therein don't accurately reflect the Obama
of today - he has obviously matured, both as a person and in his "public face."
I don't particularly hold anything in the book against him - he was, basically,
a kid doing the things that kids should do ("a radical at 20..."). And now, if
nothing else, he has become an adult man, and even before his presidency, he had
taken on, and as far as I can tell, generally lived up to the responsibilities
of one. As to what I "need said," there is nothing I "need" said, but there are
things that I think would be very beneficial to the US and world if they were
said, and said by him.

i'm more interested in his efforts and statements as president than i am
some additional explanation of his heritage - an explanation that, imo,
will satisfy none of the close-minded obama haters and will add nothing
new.

The real, true _racists_, be they black, white, yellow, or purple, aren't going
to change their position in any significant numbers because of anything anyone
says, so **** 'em - I won't expend much effort even considering them and none
worrying about them. OTOH, some impressionable kid can be saved from
significant feelings of racism and those that are just "humanly racially uneasy"
might be encouraged to be less so - simply put, it won't save the world, but it
would go a long way to making it a better place. You were big on the promise of
Obama, so here's a significant way he can use some of that promise to make a
real difference. And it won't cost taxpayers much, if anything at all.

the current right wing of our political discourse is and will remain a
mystery to me...it's arrogant, calculating, hate and propaganda for the
most part.

I agree...and it just about mirrors the current left wing, and most of the
"middle wing" is getting pretty fed up with both extremes. And that goes to one
of my points about Obama - here's a guy that is literally smooth slap in the
middle of the black-white race thing, so why not speak out as such?

it gurgles in some, boils in others...most think they are
entitled to express their vitriole against their countrymen and their
president.

Um, are you talking about now or when Bush was POTUS or ??? IAC, maybe they
think they are so entitled because in the US, they ARE so entitled. The right
to do so doesn't make it the wisest course, but having that right beats all hell
out of the alternative.

i yearn for "regular people". i think we all have our own idea of what
that means.

And I suspect that for most folks, you and I included, most of those ideas are a
lot more similar than they are different, but hey, YMMV.

if you've seen any of the photos or videos of the faces and reactions,
or read the statements, etc. of black americans (african-americans, if
you prefer)

I'd prefer that the whole term "African-American" (and the equally-silly
"Asian-American") would fade away - it's silly, not particularly informative as
a descriptive, and more a source of problems than solutions. I mean, when is
the last time you heard someone say they were a "European-American" - an
"African-American" could be a person half-Egyptian, half-Brazilian of any skin
color, yet it has come to mean "black people," primarily in the US, by US black
people. It's...ahem...a "code word," except it's goofy - it covers three
continents with a wide variety of people, albeit in US usage, I'll grant that it
means "whatever-'US American'". I could better understand "Kenyan-American"
or "Ethiopian-American."

upon first learning of Obama's election as prez...i don't
see how you or anyone can deny the impact of his election on a
significant population of this country - a population that claims him as
uniquely one of them, and an impact that included a sense of pride and
citizenship recaptured or discovered.

Well, I assume you mean "black people," and while I don't see how anyone can
speak for the entire population or significant portion thereof, anyone can claim
anyone "as uniquely one of them." And they may or may not be accurate. In the
case of Obama "black" people, he isn't "uniquely one of 'them.'" I'd offer
that if he embraced his _entire_ heritage openly and forthrightly, the
"African"/"black" as well as the "white,", more folks might truly embrace him as
"one of them"...and they'd be accurate. Again, I cannot recall Obama ever
saying "I consider myself 'black,' not 'white'" - not that he _must_ do so. But
his coyness with "African-American" is somewhat off-putting, and not just to me.
"Blacks," and especially other bi-racial folks, have expressed the exact same
feeling.

that was an important moment in my life,

Why?

revealing a level of emotion i had rarely noticed in a segment of
our society that suffers disproportionately (for whatever reason you or
others might believe) in education, income, employment, elected office,
incarceration, crime, housing, etc.

I think it is a variety of reasons, including but not primarily "racism" in the
traditional sense, at least in the last 30-40 years. I think that a much more
insidious form of racism - that of paternalist racism - has contributed moreso
in the last 30-40 years than the aforementioned "traditional" racism. And if
you doubt it, I'd offer as evidence (not "proof," just evidence) any number of
other races and nationalities that have, in the same or fewer number of
generations than black Africans have been technically "free" as well as more
"free" in a real-world sense (yes, I realize and understand that technically
"free" under Federal law didn't immediately translate into real-world _free_),
risen substantially above their initial status in the US, even in the face of a
level of on-going prejudice. Simply put, at what point do you feel that "black"
people are responsible for at least a substantive portion of their own position?
How many generations is enough? Moreover, Obama has no "heritage" of slavery or
prejudice in the sense of US "blacks," nor has he any heritage of US-type
"racism" except _possibly_ on his "white" side as the oppressor rather than the
oppressed. It would seem that a person in that position who still speaks to
blacks as "one of them" and could speak to whites just as equally as "one of
them" could spend some of his talking time speaking to both equally on equality,
so to speak.

yeah, i reckon i missed your point...

Apparently so.

jeff

TC,
R