Jump to content

Obama's speech on race


Recommended Posts

He agrees with him on some things and not on others. Why must Obama agree 100% with everything each of his advisors believes? And if he did agree with them, what would be the point of even going to them for advice, since he would have nothing to learn from their perspective?

Because W agrees 100% with all his advisors.

And he never changes his mind either.

Shows strength..... or something.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 292
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Mark Buchanan says:

What's more, this misconception seems to be deeply ingrained in our psyche. For example, Hirschfeld found that by the age of 3 most children already attribute significance to skin colour. In 1993, he showed a group of children a drawing of a chubby black child dressed up as a policeman, followed by photos of several adults, each of whom had two of the three traits: being black, chubby and dressed as a policeman.

 

Asked to decide which person was the boy as a grown-up, most children chose a black adult even though he was either not overweight or minus a police uniform. "Kids appear to believe," says Hirschfeld, "that race is more important than other physical differences in determining what sort of person one is."

 

Oh my fucking life! The only thing out of those three things that would definately be the same from child to adult would be the skin colour, surely? Fat people can get thin, policemen can stop being policemen, but the black skin is difficult to change. Unless you have that Michael Jackson thing. That experiment proves that the scientist is an idiot - the results should show that, by the age of 3, children are intelligent enough to distinguish which of those 3 things is a non-variable throughout a persons life - therefore linking a black child with a black adult is the only logical choice to make.

 

What a strange form of science.

Link to post
Share on other sites
but why he is taking the opportunity now to address this. why didn't he address it head on years ago when he heard the "controversial" sermons? why not at the beginning of his campaign? where is the effort prior to this speech to bring forward this dialogue with the minister himself and make someone obama is so close to aware of how much his actions are prohibiting the unity you talk mention? action, that's what i need, not simply a speech that talks about it.

 

i have a hard time with the whole respecting someone that differs so extremely on such a fundamental core point of view. there are some things, indeed, yes we can all agree to disagree about, that is reality. however, rev wright is not obama's best friend or third cousin, this is his pastor, his spiritual advisor, and yet they don't agree on the message that rev wright preaches. i find flaw in that. the we don't agree contradicts the notion of the role that wright has played in his life. in other words, i don't understand how his spiritual advisor, his pastor, his preacher, whatever term you give it does not align with his own personal beliefs.

 

I appreciate you stating what you need out of this issue - it just may be different than what other people need. I can cite both family and spiritual leaders and/or advisors that I extremely differ with on what you may label "fundamental core point of view". I think you may be mistaken to believe that what has been cycled in the media is what the Rev. Wright preaches. In fact, if he has been a pastor for 30+ years, I suspect he has preached on hundreds if not close to thousands of different topics, both theological and political. It is not as though Rev. Wright preaches this same topic or uses the same inflammatory language every Sunday week in and week out. I, of course, do not attend his church or have ever heard him speak in person, but I am filtering it through my own experiences in a religious upbringing.

 

Are you a person who regularly attends a religious service of worship? The only reason I ask is that as a regular churchgoer (for 15+ years), I have found that it is impossible to find a place of worship where many engaged and devoted members don't have strong, opposing views held by the pastoral staff or leadership. However, I have found such places with some level of disagreement or theological "tension" to be a healthy component of growth. It is what separates critical dialogue with indoctrination. It is what makes the greatest churches, or mosques, or synagogues - the freedom to engage in sermons or dialogues where one doe not hold the same position. Should we condemn all practicing Catholics every time they don't condemn something that the Pope or the Vatican issues a decree on which sounds ludicrous to us?

 

I really can't fathom the reasons why this has become such an issue, but it is an issue. For me, the most significant part of Obama's speech was when he admitted that he cannot condemn the Rev. Wright anymore than he could condemn his own grandmother, for reasons he then listed. Obama condemned the man's words but not the man entirely. To me, that is the mark of a noble person.

Link to post
Share on other sites
but why he is taking the opportunity now to address this. why didn't he address it head on years ago when he heard the "controversial" sermons? why not at the beginning of his campaign? where is the effort prior to this speech to bring forward this dialogue with the minister himself and make someone obama is so close to aware of how much his actions are prohibiting the unity you talk mention? action, that's what i need, not simply a speech that talks about it.

 

i have a hard time with the whole respecting someone that differs so extremely on such a fundamental core point of view. there are some things, indeed, yes we can all agree to disagree about, that is reality. however, rev wright is not obama's best friend or third cousin, this is his pastor, his spiritual advisor, and yet they don't agree on the message that rev wright preaches. i find flaw in that. the we don't agree contradicts the notion of the role that wright has played in his life. in other words, i don't understand how his spiritual advisor, his pastor, his preacher, whatever term you give it does not align with his own personal beliefs.

 

asking why he didn't address when head years ago during said "controversial" sermons, is like asking why he didn't address the racially based comments his grandmother made about blacks he also spoke about in this speech. again, he's adressing wright's comments because they are being used in a context to further create a divide they can already provide.

 

obama is trying to articulate how one can either flat out disagree w/ someone's view on race and just denounce it OR undertsand where it's coming from and then work to alleviate it's source. at this juncture in his candidacy, what 'action' are you looking for him to take? i'm genuinely curious and not baiting you.

 

our new president's oratory skills for me are huge factor in who i vote for. after 8 years of the current president's inability to pronounce certain words, let alone give any sort of speech that left me or the general collective feel inspired...or, better yet, UNITED...i really feel that speeches like this are a springboard for action. a springboard to inspire US to take the action, because the actions of one man in the office of president will only take US so far.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark Buchanan says:

 

 

Oh my fucking life! The only thing out of those three things that would definately be the same from child to adult would be the skin colour, surely? Fat people can get thin, policemen can stop being policemen, but the black skin is difficult to change. Unless you have that Michael Jackson thing. That experiment proves that the scientist is an idiot - the results should show that, by the age of 3, children are intelligent enough to distinguish which of those 3 things is a non-variable throughout a persons life - therefore linking a black child with a black adult is the only logical choice to make.

 

What a strange form of science.

 

It would be just as logical for a THREE YEAR OLD to choose the adult based on clothing or weight - what it shows, is that a children as young as three are already attributing significance to skin color, race.

 

Three year olds are a lot of things, logical is not always one of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It would be just as logical for A THREE YEAR OLD to choose the adult based on clothing or weight - what it shows, is that a children as young as three are already attributing significance to skin color, race.

 

Three year olds are a lot of things, logical is not always one of them.

 

It shows what you said, but it does not show any reason why that is the case, which would be the thing which would make the findings valid. Therefore there is nothing proved - it's far too floored to be even concidered as scientific evidence. And, that scientist is saying they are logical isn't he? Not that they aren't. Otherwise the results would be evenly spread. Maybe if he'd chosen a black child without an arm in a policeman's uniform (and the black man had both his arms) and then the results came up the same, then he'd have a point. They wouldn't though - everyone knows that kids are inherently bigoted against the disabled! A scientist in Sweden proooooved it last week.

Link to post
Share on other sites
His pastor said some pretty vile things. MSNBC can run them down for you if you look.

 

Too bad McCain is not being pressed as hard on the things said by preachers that he is actively courting because of their influence. Guys Like Tim LaHaye and Pastor Hageee down there in Texas, both virulent anti-catholics. The press has chosen not to pursue McCains courting of these guys, they choose instead to focus on Obama. Though for the life of me I can't figure it out, last week on Fox Obama was a closet Muslim waiting unleash his jihad on the US, now this week he is a christian following a radical preacher? I'm so confused.

 

Anyhow the issue is a non-issue for me. I hear my minister say thing that turn my stomach right (like quoting James Dobson) along with real messages that resonate. I have friennds who say repulsive things. I have an acquaintance who donates very heavily to republican causes (max amount allowable by law and some under the table - proudly) who is further right than David Duke he recieves thank you letters from King George. This guy openly talks his racist tlak, he opennly is a sexist, he openly admist that he fires people he thinks are democrats (he owns a multi state business) Where is the call for GW to repudiate this guy? There is no call and never will be. The cash is much appreciated and he is not a threat to republican chances to retain the white house...neither is Hillary only Obama is a true threat, so he must be pursued tooth and nail. He must be beaten down, even for things he has not done. Remember how doggedly the press kept up the "I invented the internnet " quote even though the qoute never occurred. This is going to keep on occuring and will not stop until Obama either out of office or out of the race.

 

Anyhow keepiing this issue alive and on the front burnner also hhelps obscure who MMcCain is reciving endorsements from and it takkes attention away from the fact that McCain is no longer the maverick he was once thought to be. That is unless your definition of Maverick is one who bucks his own ideals and morphs into a being (clone of Bush) simply in order to gain the white house. That's the way i see it since McCain no longer seems to have any positions that differ from Bush, and has all but assured the lingerign 30% crowd that he is the guy to give the US 4 more years of these current policies...Great, I can't wait.

 

 

Are people doing that?

 

GO read the comments to the speech in the Tribune for your answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
i have a hard time with the whole respecting someone that differs so extremely on such a fundamental core point of view. there are some things, indeed, yes we can all agree to disagree about, that is reality. however, rev wright is not obama's best friend or third cousin, this is his pastor, his spiritual advisor, and yet they don't agree on the message that rev wright preaches. i find flaw in that. the we don't agree contradicts the notion of the role that wright has played in his life. in other words, i don't understand how his spiritual advisor, his pastor, his preacher, whatever term you give it does not align with his own personal beliefs.

 

Maybe Obama thinks for himself. Why must he agree with everything his spiritual advisor says? He is not some soldier in God's Army blindly doing what he is told. He is a free thinking man who has common sense and can think for himself. I find flaw that you think someone should not disagree with an authority figure. How many catholics on this board used condoms or tell their kids to use condoms? Ask your priest what his position is on birth control and then get back to me. People dissagree with their pastors, priests, spiritual advisors, etc. all the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jules
A. What does that have to do with anything?

 

B. His own racial heritage was detailed near the beginning of the speech.

 

C. Link and full text were provided in this thread's first post.

 

 

yes. your point?

 

Sorry, I have no point. I was just asking a question. A dumb one, apparently. I didn't read the speech, so I shouldn't have commented.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It shows what you said, but it does not show any reason why that is the case, which would be the thing which would make the findings valid. Therefore there is nothing proved - it's far too floored to be even concidered as scientific evidence. And, that scientist is saying they are logical isn't he? Not that they aren't. Otherwise the results would be evenly spread. Maybe if he'd chosen a black child without an arm in a policeman's uniform (and the black man had both his arms) and then the results came up the same, then he'd have a point. They wouldn't though - everyone knows that kids are inherently bigoted against the disabled! A scientist in Sweden proooooved it last week.

 

With all due respect, I think you're missing the point.

 

Here's the study in its entirety.

 

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf

 

And for the record, Mark Buchanan was not involved in the study, it was conducted by Axelrod and Hammond.

Link to post
Share on other sites
With all due respect, I think you're missing the point.

 

Here's the study in its entirety.

 

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf

 

And for the record, Mark Buchanan was not involved in the study, it was conducted by Axelrod and Hammond.

 

That's not the same study he was talking about. It was undertaken in 1993 by Hirschfeld, not in 2003 by Axelrod and Hammond. Plus it's 30 pages long (well 17 and then index) and I can't read all that - especially as it's not the same study.

 

You're right about missing the point - mainly cos there isn't one to hit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Kids appear to believe," says Hirschfeld, "that race is more important than other physical differences in determining what sort of person one is."

 

that's a lot more loaded than saying that children undertsand skin color as a significant difference. Mark Buchanan was not involved in the study, but he used elements of said (possibly flawed) study to substantiate his views on racism, yeah?

 

just sayin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would imagine basic tribalism, or the like of like, is wired into our DNA. As a little kid, like 4 or 5, I was scared poopless by the black people living next door, until they made an effort to be nice to me. Then I liked them fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's not the same study he was talking about. It was undertaken in 1993 by Hirschfeld, not in 2003 by Axelrod and Hammond. Plus it's 30 pages long (well 17 and then index) and I can't read all that - especially as it's not the same study.

 

You're right about missing the point - mainly cos there isn't one to hit.

 

Whoops - my bad - that

Link to post
Share on other sites
do I have to read the whole speech before making personal attacks and uneducated comments that lack any historical or cultural perspective--or could I just wait a few more pages?

 

I've forgotten how the whole system works...

 

:unsure

 

is now a good time?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Everything I've read says Obama wrote it himself. :thumbup

Bully for him! This might end the struggle for the nomination, but Pennsylvania is a long ways away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...