The more posts I see about how bad (scary, socialist, egotistical, you fill it in) that Barack Obama is the more I am convinced I was right in the first place. Racism is alive and well in the US.
There are two kinds of racism: individual and systemic. Many white people have left individual racism behind without understanding that systemic racism hides - as evil in “high places” - behind PC language and racial profiling, behind quotas and failed programs that we silently condone (or, maybe, scream madly about) but do not change.
If white people do not speak out against the triple evils: racism, poverty and war, we are racist (not because of what we do to the black guy at work) but because we do not really care if the playing field is level.
Too many of us want to put the cart before the horse. First we must level the playing field, then we can compete. As long as we continue to compete on a field that is slanted, white people (as a group, not necessarily individuals) will always win. Winning, whether planned or not, merely due to the color of one’s skin, is racism. And white people are still winning.
Republicans scream “socialist” many times a day, when speaking of Obama. And yet, they never come up with a better way to level the field (and thus, fight racism) than the Democrats have. How will we level the economic field without some kind of redistribution of wealth? Republicans never suggest an alternative; they simply ignore this issue and pretend matters will correct themselves, over time. They won’t, just as racism won’t just go away, if we stop talking about it.
Are there certain tasks black people must perform for themselves rather than asking all of us to do them? Of course. What has that to do with white people fighting racism?
Republicans want to talk “policy.” And yet all they do is try to blemish a good man’s character. This is “trying to make people afraid.” How is it “nasty” to say what blacks have been saying since the times of slavery? It’s “nasty,” because Barck Obama is running for the President of the United States of America. That’s why. How dare a black man have the audacity to do so! And with such hope. Such forward thought.
How many times have I heard someone say they are “afraid” of Obama? Well, to conquer fear, we must face it. The US is a nation that was conceived in racism and needs to purge racism from her being. Fighting racism, poverty and war is great way to establish peace.
Voting for Obama is a perfect opportunity to begin the fight against those triple evils.
.
Please note: It was not necessary to say one ugly thing about the Republican candidate to write this post. I didn’t even mention his name.


91 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 22, 2008 at 11:31 am
Meander
you are preaching to the choir here. i am aghast at what i have been seeing lately such as a button saying that if he gets elected it will no longer be the white house. it is sad how many people think. i am praying obama wins.
June 22, 2008 at 11:37 am
helenl
Hi Meander, Welcome to my blog. Let’s sing another round. Another round for truth. Another round for hope. Another round for change.
June 22, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Kirby Olson
I think the Republicans suggest the same thing that Barack did last week: getting and staying married, and fathering the children that you have.
That’s the only thing that can make any real dent in the problem.
Barack has that one thing dead right.
June 22, 2008 at 8:47 pm
helenl
Hi Kirby, I think there’s more to it than that.
June 22, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Jay Burns
Helen, I want to stand up and scream. I didn’t even finish your post. Although I will go back and read it. Yes, I will call Barak Obama’s policies socialist. That’s because they are socialist. I will say that his policies are not good for the economy of the United States that’s because they are bad for the United States. I will say that Barak Obama’s foreign policy scares the living daylights out of me. That is because he thinks if we are just nicer to other countries they’ll suddenly decide that blowing us off the face of the planet no longer suits them. They won’t.
Saying those things about Hillary doesn’t make me sexist, and saying them about Barak Obama doesn’t make me racist. Jeez. I say if you don’t vote for McCain then you hate old people. Yep, hatred of old people is alive and well in this country. Don’t believe me, just ask the elderly how hard it is to be hired for a good paying job. Nope they are told the only job that suits them is greeting at Wal-mart. Still need more proof just listen to the democratic campaign. Over and over they insinuate John McCain is too old to be president and is losing his mind. Don’t hate the elderly. Vote McCain in 08.
I’ll finish reading your post now.
June 22, 2008 at 8:58 pm
helenl
Hi Jay. Seems fighting racism isn’t very important when you pick a presidential candidate. I think it’s very important.
June 22, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Jay Burns
Seems to me getting equal rights for the elderly isn’t very important to you when picking your candidate. Yes, I’m being only a tad ridiculous.
1. Picking a president based on race rather than policy is silly.
2. Telling people voting for Obama is fighting racisim while voting for McCain is not.. ergo, racist is wrong.
3. Why is fighting against mistreatment of the elderly less important than fighting for black rights?
June 22, 2008 at 9:30 pm
helenl
Not sure what you are talking about, Jay. Is Obama opposed to good treatment for the elderly? I heard him accused of just about everything, but I hadn’t heard that.
1. I am picking my candidate by policy. I am picking a Democrat. I would vote for any Democrat. I supported Hillary Clinton in the primary. My choice would have been John Edwards. But since the Democrat is Obama, I can have policy and fight racism simultaneously. So can anyone who votes for Obama.
2. Anyone who votes for Obama is fighting racism. Those who vote for McCain are not. They’re not voting to make it worse, just not better.
3. Voting for McCain will not help the elderly. All presidents to date have been white and male. Many have been old. It isn’t like Obama wants to do away with social security.
June 23, 2008 at 1:26 am
Jay Burns
No one as old as John McCain. I know you were for Edwards to start. I take exception to the underlying tone that those who vote for McCain are not doing so on policy, but doing so because they would hate to see a black man in office.
You said, “Republicans want to talk “policy.” And yet all they do is try to blemish a good man’s character.”
Nearly all the attachs I have heard have been policy related. Including those including the words “I am afraid to have Obama in office because..” Sure a few have been due to misconseptions such as he is muslim, but then again there are the same rumors going around about McCain.
June 23, 2008 at 9:01 am
helenl
G’morning Jay,
Try this one. It seems so many people don’t like Obama or McCain, so they’re voting the “lesser of two evils.” (How I hate that negative voting.) If there’s really no one you want to vote for, why not vote against racism instead of against the scary black man. At least that way, we fight something bad: racism.
June 23, 2008 at 10:29 am
Mike Lovell
Oh no, here we go again….
Merely voting for a candidate based on color/race is not fighting racism, but rather perpetuating it. Because by picking between 2 people, 1 white and 1 black, and you are determined to pick the black person, wouldn’t that decision making be based on racist assumptions?
Now, that being said, anyone voting against Obama because he’s black, or because he’s supposedly (but not actually) muslim, and that scaring them…they are most obviously idiots. I would say also the same about any person who votes for McCain simply because he’s white or male. I would say the same for anyone who voted for Clinton because she’s white or female. And again for Obama because he’s black or male.
I have no problem with Obama changing positions over time, be it his decision not to run becoming a decision to run, and his decision to take federal money changing to one to not accept federal money. Or any number of other decisions he has made and changed. I’m not one who’s big on the flip-flop argument, merely because those who cant allow themselves to change their mind (unless they’re somehow perfect and don’t need to) will most likely make horrible decisions based entirely on ego, which usually leads to trouble.
As Jay pointed out, Obama’s policy are socialist. By definition backed up by over a century, his policies are exactly socialist. I am afraid of socialism creeping any further into the fabric of America’s politics. Every socialistic government to date has, in order to keep from struggling in what we would know to be an economic depression has had to institute a capitalistic aspect in order to survive. Without a strong capitalistic presence, that rewards hard work and smarts, the economy will continue to tank.
I don’t see Obama’s policies doing anything but adding more cost prohibitive measures against already over-regulated and over-taxed businesses. Prices go up on literally everything, and trust me, the currently wealty will survive, the poor will lose more ground.
June 23, 2008 at 11:51 am
helenl
Hi Mike, We’re going to the same place as long as my blog and racism exist. That’s the ministry God gave me. And I will be faithful.
Voting for a black candidate is fighting racism. If enough people do it, we’ll have our first black president. All the notable firsts have to come. Now on the other hand, voting for a white candidate isn’t necessarily voting for racism, unless, of course, you consider the status quo racist, which truly it is.
So Obama’s policies are socialist. Why can’t socialism be combined with capitalism? Capitalism unchecked is unfair. But say the word, and drama enters. Suddenly we’re all poverty-stricken and living in one room with a bathroom down the hall. Good sense tells us all the houses that are here now will still be here. Duh.
Why reward smart people? “I’m so glad you had the foresight to be born smart son. You’re not like that stupid kid in your class.” That smacks of elitism. There are plenty of smart poor people who work hard for little reward.
During the Great Depression (endured under capitalism, if I recall my history), wasn’t it the rich who jumped out of windows? The poor went down but had less distance to go.
June 23, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Mike Lovell
Sure voting for a black candidate is fighting racism, if he is the right (with a little r, not the big one) candidate. Just voting for any black candidate doesn’t make it great. If they appointed some token black candidate, who walked and talked like some hoodlum gangbanger, would a vote for him be be the step in the right direction?
I’m not against having our first black president. If a friend of mine, Lloyd, ran, I’d vote for him. Not because he’s black, mind you, but because of his views. His being black is something he was born being. He should be proud of it.
As for voting white being racism, due to it being the status quo, only if you are voting for the white guy because he’s the white guy. Racism is an internal personal perception, and cannot be changed by merely voting a guy into office. Even if (and it probably will be so) Obama becomes our next president, will racism still exist? Or will it suddenly find itself being eroded away?
Socialism….socialism can be combined with capitalism, but the socialism must maintain the minority role, be tempered if you will, as a governmental practice. Otherwise it will tend to take over the proverbial landscape. Socialism equates itself with state control, and thusly the elimination of personal choice.
As for capitalism going unchecked….I agree, it should be checked, to a point. The government’s main role, and little more, is to make sure the players in the game don’t hurt each other. Checking monopolies, ensuring safe working conditions, as well as maintaining a free-to-work policy (as opposed to forcing people to join unions in order to work). Taxation should be kept to a minimum to pay for the necessities, not placed at over the top rates that discourage businesses from operating domestically. Combined with overregulation, high taxation rates have led to many companies positioning themselves overseas. Sure we get cheaper products, but we weaken the workforce with lesser jobs, lesser pay. SO now we make less money, to pay for cheaper products. Money filters overseas, as well as into the pockets of a handful of business owners, which in order to spend there money, some goes to domestic service companies, and on up to the manufacturers, still located overseas.
I believe in a living wage more so than I do a minimum wage, and with that point I’m sure you and I agree. The better way to do that is not to tax the crap out of American companies, but to control import prices, close overseas tax sheltering of “off-shore” based “American” companies, to encourage them to bring the better paying jobs back home to hard working Americans.
As for rewarding smart people, I guess I should’ve been more specific. Smart people who put their brains to good use, who create and innovate products and servies to better serve society. I know many hard working, underpaid smart people. I tend to classify myself in that category. I have to work a good 10-20 hours of overtime to get what might be considered a decent paycheck to pay my bills once you couple it with my wife who actually makes more than I do. I have done relatively little with the brains I do have, and have lacked initiative towards improving myself for a better paying job. Should I feel slighted that I make less than my wife, who actively taught herself a few extra skills to put her in a position for a better paying job, out of fairness? I hardly think so. As for being born smart…I don’t know about that concept. Sure some are born more intelligent than others to a degree, but surely aren’t imbued with the key to the puzzle created by quantum physics by any means.
As for the Great Depression, yes it came about under a capitalistic society. People got greedy, made stupid decisions, and things went to hell in a handbasket. Government intervention based a lot on policies of Italian Fascism, it is speculated actually caused the Depression to last longer than it would have, had we allowed market conditions to improve themselves, through learning from the mistakes made before then.
After all, have we found one government program that has managed to make everything equally attainable and beneficial to everybody? And if you have found such a program, how many millions could’ve been spent elsewhere without hurting the quality of the program. I mean we are talking about putting the financial aspects of major necessities of society into the hands of people who can’t seem to help but lose $18million (entirely taxpayer money) over 15 years in a local restuarant system in Washington D.C., and have decided that literally, the only viable solution is privatization. And yet we want to hand over entire healthcare systems to these same people? Risk nationalization of the oil industry, which may or may not help out consumers purchasing everyday products, let alone gas at the pump?
The Soviet Union eventually crashed under its own weight, because it could not maintain a status of equalization with the U.S, financially speaking. We could produce more money, legitamately, faster than they could ever dream. Mussolini slowly lost power, in part because he marched himself to his capture and death, but because he had lost the power of ideas with his people prior to this, because he could no longer produce- “Getting the trains to run on time” will only carry you so far.
Ideas and philosophies like those of Sorel, Marx, and James run well, when delivered by the right person to the people. Populism is powerful, as long as you can keep the people on the march, but oftentimes, as time shows, the populism which fuels these ideas is greater as mythology than a way of life.
June 23, 2008 at 2:21 pm
helenl
Mike, you sound sensible. So think about this, a black president must be someone black people want. I think Obama is that person. I think he wants what’s good for all Americans. I think he believes in capitalism, as I do, once things are set right.
“Racism is an internal personal perception,” Yes, that’s personal racism. But the government must deal with institutional racism. (See original post.)
More later.
June 23, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Meander
LOL I would love to hear the explanation of why Obama is a socialist. This reminds me of the “Hitler” argument. You take something which most people would agree is bad such as “Hitler” or “socialism” and you attach or liken the person to that feared or hated icon and voila…you have this very weak argument with no foundation whatsoever.
I think the backlash against Obama shows very well that racism in this country is alive. It is one thing to disagree with policies but many people are, indeed, attacking the man for his race. Obama will have a more difficult time running based on his race alone.
I am not going to vote for Obama because of his skin color. I am going to vote for him because I feel he will have the best success in turning this country around. I vehemently do not want more of the same. We have NOT helped to stop terrorism…we are perpetuating it. The entire world is sick of Bush and how he has handled foreign affairs. It is time for a change.
June 23, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Mike Lovell
Meander-
I’m not likening him to Hitler, although fascism, socialism, and communism are essentially kissing cousins, Hitler was a man with no foundation, but rather picked up on and dropped ideas at the drop of a hat. Everything for the movement to keep going. Great speeches which moved the people, eventually the war machine to put power behind it, but no known static personal set of convictions.
Obama is socialist by nature that he advocates the very bearings of socialism, that is…of the state, by the stae, and for the state.
For example….
If you had a whole pizza, and I sat there with none, would you give me a slice?
moral imperative shows more often than not, you would say yes.
but if you said no, then what? would you keep your pizza, while I went without, or does the government step in and say they don’t care what you want, give Mike a slice…..as a matter of fact, take your other slices and give them to Helen, Jay, and Kirby as well.
Now say you paid for this pizza with your own money. but instead of getting your pizza….the rest of us all got a slice, then they gave you what was left over. That’s the socialist government in action.
Take from those who produce, give to those who don’t. It doesn’t matter if those who have not work, are handicapped and can’t work, or just aren’t going to work but rather leech off the system.
What I find amazing about socialism, is its all about redistributing wealth…however those that have and who run the program, will NEVER be found wanting. They speak of “united” and “solidarity”, and yet, they are the rich who pander words to your emotions. They talk the talk, but do they walk the walk? I hardly doubt it.
Many complain that our capitalistic society leaves few rich, and many poor. Yet again I say, the Soviet Union……a few rich, many poor….and for the poor, not that much bread to go around in normal societal conditions
In the U.S., there will always be plenty of bread in almost all conditions, save a few supermarkets in natural disaster zones, have you ever seen them run out of bread?
Socialism is as its intended, the great equalizer among men, unless you’re on the inside of the ruling party.
While they dine, you will find yourself whining. The question is, in a socialistic society, do you still have every opportunity to prosper?
I agree that change must be made, but errant change is worse than no change. Yes, Bush isn’t the greatest foreign policy guy by any means, I’ll agree with you there. I don’t know how Obama would fare in that arena, but domestically, I think his policies have seriously negative implications for the average person.
June 23, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Mike Lovell
Helen-
There are two kinds of racism: individual and systemic. Many white people have left individual racism behind without understanding that systemic racism hides – as evil in “high places” – behind PC language and racial profiling, behind quotas and failed programs that we silently condone (or, maybe, scream madly about) but do not change.
And yet the push for PC comes from the left, the quotas (ie-affirmative action) are a product of the left. All programs in these “evil high places” by the very ones who claim to be the ones on the left who have the most compassion for these parties. So I might beg to ask, are the real racists masking themselves behind a cloud of politics? Just a thought, more rhetorical than anything.
I believe, as far as we’ve come in the last 100 years, racism still exists all over the place, but I believe it exists on multiple fronts, not just white on black, or white on asian, or white on hispanics, but from all directions toward all directions.
As for the statement, a black president must be someone blacks want. I have no argument there, other than, as I said in my first response, would many blacks vote for any black who was put up for the nomination? Or would they vote against the black candidate if they smelt a fish? Would a “puppet” candidate still get votes anyways, based entirely on race?
June 23, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Meander
umm…maybe i have missed something here. i never agreed to this premise that obama is perpetuating “socialist” and now you wish to add “communist” manifestos. republicans have spent more money, have been more intrusive, have represented more of the “big government” than any democrats I have seen. fiscal responsibility? not happening now. when folks lose their jobs and the line between having a home and homelessness becomes a very thin line, crime is going to go up. the effects of this administration will be seen for some time to come.
i would like to see…someone such as yourself…with your particular ideologies…when something unforeseen happens to you or one of your family members and you are in need. then by golly, you will be one of the many who is in need. you need to go out and meet real people who you so easily stereotype. all you have in your mind is a static cartoon character portrait of people, a black and white world, where some are deserving and others undeserving.
so many folk like to blast off about their values when they have not lived through anything.
June 23, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Mike Lovell
Meander-
Don’t assume I’m some rich elitist snob who sees the world through cherry covered lenses from up on high. I make $9.50/hr and work 50-60 hrs a week as a rentacop in a (kindof) metropolitan area. I am just as much on the short end of the stick as almost any other person(low wages and low respect profession). I live amongst the many who rely on government subsidies for their homes. I’m not saying they don’t deserve shelter by any means, I merely ask that they work for it, just as I do. As i’ve mentioned in other posts, I’m even for better targeted, graduated assistance programs rather than these programs that you either qualify or you don’t.
Many of these neighbors of mine are able to work, they just choose not to do so, or some work just enough to keep from losing their monthly benefits.
As for unforeseen issues….I just watched my paycheck to paycheck lifestyle which doesn’t include a whole lot get bounced around by my one singular vehicle deciding it needs massive work under the hood totalling well over a $1000 I don’t really have. Meanwhile, some of my neighbors have 2 vehicles, go out to eat regularly, always have the newest gaming system, the big screen tv with cable/satellite.
I work hard, and despite state payroll tax formulations, I still find a way to owe the State of Iowa money every year. And here I sit, not doing nearly as well as some of my neighbors who work very little, or not at all. So obviously, I’m a littled miffed by it.
As for republicans……I am not one. They have been big spenders (thats both sides of the aisle frankly), and they have been intrusive. You’ll get no argument from me there. I’m an actual conservative. I believe in spending only what we need to. No more “bridges to nowhere” or “Robert C Byrd Memorial (whatever he hasn’t named after himself yet)” that wastes billions of dollars that could be better spent on more productive and/or useful things. I don’t care one way or the other about democrats and republicans. I stay independent and vote people in from whichever party the better person I feel comes from. And at least half of the ballot I find myself checking the (D) lines.
I prefer those who will allow me to live my life, afford me the opportunities to get ahead based on my own merit and hard work, and do their best to keep the government out of my way, as the founding father’s intended. With the current platforms, I see more taxation eating away my meager paycheck for benefits that wil not benefit me. I see the higher taxes leading to higher prices (as businesses see the taxes as a cost expense to be passed on to the consumer) everywhere I go. SO now I’ll have less money for less things I can afford. I’m not saying McCain is any better than Obama, in fact I’m most likely to vote some off-ticket candidate who more closely represents my viewpoint.
June 23, 2008 at 5:31 pm
helenl
Mike and Meannder,
Thanks for keeping the blog hot while I ran some errands.
It amazes me how the jump goes: Obama to socialism to communism to Oh my God Russia as though there could be no other path.
Redistribution of wealth goes: From insanely rich/poor to everyone poor. No in between. No insanely rich with four mansions to just one mid-sized mansion and 463 other families in small duplexes on same amount of money.
Redistribution doesn’t mean making everyone equal. It means giving everyone a chance. It might not affect you at all, Mike. Just people who are stupid-rich and those who don’t have enough to compete. As Martin Luther King Jr. said, “It is cruel to tell a man to pull himself up by his bootstraps, if he has no boots.”
June 23, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Mike Lovell
Okay, so it puts people on equal footing to make it on their own from that point on? (am I getting your point right?)
So, what stops a poor person today from being wealthy in 3 years, as things are now?
As to the jump from Obama to socialism….well, she wanted to see the explanation that makes Obama socialist…things began tangling themselves from there on out. Sometimes, my mind and my mouth run faster and trip my fingers up, and it gets to be one big mess from me!
June 23, 2008 at 5:42 pm
helenl
Mike,
“So, what stops a poor person today from being wealthy in 3 years, as things are now?”
An uneven playing field.
” . . . it gets to be one big mess from me!”
Me, too. Me, too.
Back later. Time to make a home-made pizza.
June 23, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Mike Lovell
Home-made pizza!?!?!?! That sounds like a grand idea! Makes the casserole I’ll be making sound less appealing now.
so, an uneven playing field? You should take a look at people within the Amway/Quixtar field, and other such organizations that are churning out the next “new” wealthy person by the truckloads every year. In addition to those wealthy people, they bring with them batches of other people who make good cash, and will be in the next truckload.
I would say, yes it is hard to ascend, but then again, if the goal was easy to reach, would it even be worth it?
And another question to ponder. A majority percentage (I heard something to the effect of 90-95%, but I don’t know) of lottery winners, when found 10 years later, are found to be worse off than before they won the big money. Or, the heirs to great fortunes who somehow bankrupt a seemingly unloseable estate.
Is it really the possession of money, or the financial literacy that most people lack, that is the true forteller of one’s financial future?
June 23, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Meander
the problem is in the decision of what is “productive and useful.” i am sure there would be many who would not wish to allocate any money for those who are disabled, for example. my son, who has autism, may never hold a normal job. he may be deemed as unproductive and non-useful to some. all people who are receiving aid are not trying to cheat the system. it is an unfair portrayal and one which makes it easier to justify not giving aid to anyone. it is easier to demonize those who are in a different circumstance.
June 23, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Mike Lovell
Well, in the example of your son, yes, I’m all for aiding people like him who have a legitimate handicap. I guess I didn’t mention it within this thread, so my apologies.
For those who are unable to do so, I am willing to pay my fair share to go towards that type of aid. And as I said earlier, I am for a graduated system of aid for those out of work, or underemployed. Unlike when I was growing up and my dad made $20 too much a month, so we qualified for zero assistance. While a person or family made $1 under the threshhold received full benefits, despite a mere $21 difference in income, it expanded the income gap by over (at the time) approximately $400/month.
My beef is supporting those who refuse to do anything about their situation, despite their obvious ability to do so. Those who actually revel in their ability to do as little as absolutely possible and collect “free money”.
It’s a rather complicated issue, when you get down to the particulars. It’s a shame, in my opinion that the church seems to have concentrated a lot of the money they collect for facility expansion, fancy acoutrement (sp?), and the like, and less on taking care of the poor here at home, as they did much more, especially prior to the introduction of the Income Tax Code and IRS in the earlier part of the 20th century. Family and friends took care of each other when they needed it. As a whole society, we fail to live up to our responsibilities in this area, and I think we need to return more to that era of servitude.
I just see, in my opinion, a government that continues to grow in size, collect more and more money at record levels, yet provide less and less to legitimate causes. I think that our government needs to reduce its size to previous levels, spend more wisely- focusing on more necessities rather than grandiose pet projects.
June 23, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Meander
well rest assured that your taxes are not doing much to help the poor with this administration but is, instead, being spent on a war which nobody wanted. would this be considered a “grandiose pet project”?
June 23, 2008 at 9:25 pm
helenl
Fact is, I don’t know all the answers. But at least I know a couple of the questions. We need change.
And will some people abuse the system? Of course.
What’s useful? Are the arts useful? I say they are.
Who’s disabled? Only the permanently disabled? Why?
The world is full of more questions than answers.
June 23, 2008 at 9:27 pm
helenl
You’re right about Dubya’s war, Meander. How much safer are we? Not one bit. And how much time is wasted being searched in airports? Now there’s some racial profiling for you.
June 23, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Meander
the whole world perceives us as a joke. bush will go down in history as one of the worst if not the worst president in history. yet people still wish to defend this administration. they want more…of this. it is beyond my capacity to understand.
June 23, 2008 at 10:26 pm
helenl
Yes, I have friend who went to Paris recently. She got “cussed out” for being American. The world was on our side after 9/11 and then Bush went to work.
June 24, 2008 at 10:25 am
Mike Lovell
While Bush has a sadly low approval rating, some of the fault lies with the current congress. After vowing to end the war, they have literally nixed every attempt to move forward with such plans, only allowing the war to continue. Unfortunately, on both sides, our politicians have forgotten they were to be statesmen and stateswomen instead of career “baloney processing engineers”.
As for the war itself, I think we should’ve kept our focus on Afghanistan, and less on Iraq.
Meander- As far as the war being a pet project..it seems to tie in wth my above statement, that is really is a pet project of all sides, at an inexcusable cost, so that they have something to talk about, as opposed to doing naything to fix our real problems here at home.
Also, on a side note, I read your bio page, and you have my vote for “Mother of the Year” any day….I don’t know if I would have the strength to deal with an autistic child. That takes a pretty special person!
June 24, 2008 at 11:02 am
helenl
Congress? Every time they try to pass a good bill, old Dubya vetoes it. He started an illegal war and is hell-bent on continuing it, no matter what anyone else thinks. He’ll go down in history as a really bad president.
June 24, 2008 at 11:19 am
renaissanceguy
Helen, would having Alan Keyes or Condoleeza Rice as president be steps toward ending racism? I’d vote for them with no reservations.
As for Obama being a socialist, it is simply a fact. If one believes, as I do that the Republicans are lite socialists, then it follows that the Democrats are the real deal. Redistribution of wealth, which I believe you brought up, Helen, is one of the hallmarks of socialism, no?
Oh, and please explain to me why a few of my black high school classmates make way more money than I do now. If you can’t explain it, I will. They worked hard and got degrees that qualified them for lucrative careers. That’s the best way to end poverty–get out of it by working!
June 24, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Mike Lovell
Yes Helen, Congress. If they have enough votes to make something intio law, then they technically have enough votes to override a veto. And yet, as far as the illegal war, they keep on talking, and yet have yet to bring forth a serious bill. Pelosi herself won’t even allow a real bill for withdrawal to be broguht up for pre-vote discussion. And, she does control what comes up and for votes or not, as she is the official agenda setter. It’s all about political discussion….acting busy without accomplishing anything can be harder than actually moving to accomplish something.
Democrat or not, you have to admit, on there ‘06 platform of promises, they’d be failing miserably, and you can’t truly blame it on Bush, because they can override any veto he has if the bill gets enough support. They require very little republican support in order to have clear majority.
June 24, 2008 at 12:33 pm
helenl
RG,
NO. Those are conservative blacks. They have every right to be conservative. But the larger black community is not conservative in the way they are. So, voting for them is fine. But in what way does it fight racism?
Obama has socialist tendencies. So do most democrats. So? And, of course, redistribution of wealth is socialistic.
“Oh, and please explain to me why a few of my black high school classmates make way more money than I do now. If you can’t explain it, I will. They worked hard and got degrees that qualified them for lucrative careers. That’s the best way to end poverty–get out of it by working!”
I can’t explain why there are always exceptions to the rule. There just are. But analysis requires us to seek pattens, not exceptions.
**
Mike,
Maybe you’re right. I just think having Bush in the White House is depressing for all concerned. Like the whole world.
Even McCain is a step in the right direction. LOL
June 24, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Mike Lovell
LOL
June 24, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Jay Burns
Just so I’m clear here Helen. Are you saying that Keyes and Rice are “not black enough” for you?
June 24, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Meander
thanks mike.
helen…i just love your blog and it is nice to see that folk who come here can have a civilized discussion without it degenerating to public insults.
June 24, 2008 at 3:04 pm
helenl
No, Jay, I’m saying black people call them “Uncle Toms.” Especially Condy.
Meander,
I warn people who bring personal attacks here, but if they keep it up, I delete them. You can attack any idea I have. But not my or anyone else’s right to be who we are. That’s just too stupid to tolerate.
June 24, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Jay Burns
Meander, while Helen and I can disagree on just about every political subject under the sun we share a faith in Christ which keeps us “mostly” civil on the political subjects. I have great respect for her. Even when she is wrong.
June 24, 2008 at 3:12 pm
helenl
As do I for Jay, even when he’s wrong, which is far more often than I am.
June 24, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Meander
lol…you two are cute! nice to meet you both.
June 24, 2008 at 4:23 pm
helenl
Meander, Life is too short, too wonderful, to spend it with hateful people. There are too many nice ones everywhere.
June 25, 2008 at 1:23 am
renaissanceguy
Ah, so it really isn’t just about skin color? That’s just what some of us have been saying.
If John Edwards were running against Condoleeza Rice, you would vote for John Edwards, even though the latter is both black and a woman. That fact pretty much demolishes your argument that people should vote for Obama just because he happens to be black.
And obviously “race” doesn’t actually mean race. To be black doesn’t just mean that you are part of a certain genetic group. It means to have certain political viewpoints, apparently.
Am I understanding?
June 25, 2008 at 9:29 am
helenl
No RG, it isn’t about skin color. It’s about black people being true to their heritage, their history. It’s about black people understanding and continuuing the struggle for freedom.
I would vote for Edwards. I like his policies better than Rice’s. If Rice were elected, of course, Republicans would shout like they really “did” something. But sadly, Rice would be a “token” black and just a part of their reactionary agenda and wouldn’t move blacks toward their gaol one bit.
I think you are starting to “get” it. But you over-simplify.
June 25, 2008 at 10:06 am
Mike Lovell
Okay, now I’m REALLY confused, because I was going to ask about voting for black conservatives before I saw it come up, and was waiting for an answer before adding my two cents (or one, depending on the statements worth).
So, now my questions would be, what heritage are we expecting to be continued? I only ask this, because if say, black conservatives became a majority representative body of the people, would that not too accomplish the same goal of achieving freedom, and the power that comes with said freedom, or would it be nothing more tan a ruse because it doesn’t follow modern historical lines of thought? And once having gained the freedom, and dare I say it, “equality” we hope to achieve one day…then wouldn’t the struggle essentially end?
Or is it truly about maintaining the movement?
June 25, 2008 at 10:32 am
helenl
Mike,
In the US, being black has meant having one drop of “black blood,” so it isn’t about color. In some ways it is about “maintaining the movement” until equality is complete. But that, of course, is impossible because the “movement” self-destructed after 1963, March on Washington – “I Have a Dream,” due to fighting among black leaders, impatience among poor northern blacks, and whites who thought we’d accomplished the goal.
June 25, 2008 at 11:03 am
Mike Lovell
Helen,
If maintaining the movement is impossible, then the movement can never achieve its goals. Why then, academically speaking, would one continue to fight a fight that will never be won? Not just for equality against racism, but say a war, or crime, or say for giggles, me beating up Mike Tyson?
Would one not just bloody themselves up in a battle that will prove to be fruitless, and accomplish nothing, other than another day to state your claims before being beaten again?
While it can’t be proven, there is possibility of a few drops of black blood in my lineage from my ancestors while in Europe, but yet, even with proof, I’m pretty sure my pasty Irish/English/French/German/Cherokee self would still be considered white or caucasian.
I agree with you on the infighting amongst black leaders. While not being an expert on the times and events, much less anywhere near as educated on the issues as you are, I too have come to such a conclusion.
A couple things I have wondered. I heard once somewhere that Dr. King was himself a Republican. Is that true?
Also, back in the era of our forefathers, the North generally disagreed with slavery, while the south was very much in favor of it. The north was found to be more republican at the time, with democrats the majority of the slaveholding south. Lincoln came about as our President, the South seceeded. Our Civil War became a war over slavery and civil rights, and to a greater extent a battle over State’s rights versus Federal Control. Rightly so, the North conquered the South, essentially the Big guy took on the Little guy and won. While slavery did still continue, essentially Lincoln’s administration, our history’s first Republican administration at that, had done the unthinkable and trampled state’s right over an issue of morality pushed by northern abolitionists.
What happened that caused blacks to become a basic voting bloc for the democratic party who had enslaved them for years, instead of going with the republican party, who in essence encouraged their equal status (at least in theory)?
Also, in reference to acheiving equal status, and some black conservatives referred to as Uncle Toms, since they don’t go about “continuing the struggle” in the traditional sense. Is it that they have changed and accepted the idea of personal morality and responsibility, instead of rising only as the collective group rises, or what?
I don’t mean to be all over the place, or sound ignorant. But you are the more educated one, and if my dad did teach me one thing, besides READ, is to pick the brains of someone who is smarter than you…and well, here you are!
June 25, 2008 at 11:19 am
helenl
Dr. King never joined a political party. King’s father endorse Kennedy over Nixon in 1960, after Kennedy managed to get his son (MLK JR.) out of a nasty situation in an Alabama prison. King cried, when he heard LBJ say. “We shall overcome” during a speech on national television. LBJ was a racist on the surface who did much to see that legislation was passed that allowed blacks to vote, etc. When King spoke out against the Vietnam War, Johnson was mad. King died before the election in 1968.
Most blacks are independent, even today. The black church has been open to politicians for years. Many black churches invite all politicians to come and speak to their congregations. Blacks say that politicians must “earn” their votes, that they are loyal to neither party.
When blacks use the term “uncle tom,” they are referring to blacks who have sold out: become white and forgotten where they came from, which is the black church and the struggle for freedom.
June 25, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Jay Burns
In order to be black you have to accept the popular political and social thoughts. Sounds pretty exclusionary. I wonder if Rice knows she isn’t black enough.
By the way both Rice and Powell are extremely centrist republicans. Neither one are overtly conservative. Most conservatives would have the same problems with either of those that they have with McCain.
June 25, 2008 at 12:50 pm
helenl
“Both Rice and Powell are extremely centrist republicans.”
And blacks have called both “toms.”
June 25, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Mike Lovell
So despite being examples of the heights that blacks may reach, by not reiterating far left mantras, this means that they have become white?
June 25, 2008 at 1:21 pm
helenl
Maybe. For the time being. But probably not when the shit hits the fan.
June 25, 2008 at 1:26 pm
helenl
Try Checking out “The Souls of Black Folk” By W. E. B. DuBois
http://www.bartleby.com/114/index.html
scroll down
I think the contents of the whole book is online.
July 1, 2008 at 12:00 pm
What does real racism look like? « The Confluence
[...] neither does this one: If white people do not speak out against the triple evils: racism, poverty and war, we are racist [...]
July 1, 2008 at 1:18 pm
annabellep
Not only do you think that simply voting for a black man is fighting racism, you also think those who don’t believe as you do, that voting for a black man is The Most Important Way to fight racism, are racists. Lady, you are part of the problem. And your ignorance is ringing throughout the blogosphere today. Thank goodness for sunshine.
July 1, 2008 at 1:28 pm
helenl
Hi Annabellep, Welcome to my blog. You are entitled to your opinion. But you have seriously misunderstood what I said. Have you actually read any other of my blog entries? And don’t call me “Lady” again in that tone of voice. We argrue opinions on this blog. We don’t call people names.
July 1, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Sheri
I am concerned first of all that you, Helen, would think that calling you “Lady” is name calling. Sometimes, we speak in words with emphasis on getting our point across; as in, it’s hard to put emotions forth. We are all different people – some are calm and collected; some are bold and voracious. Could your distain be a sort of “power” that you wish to exude here on your own personal blog? I have often found in life that some of us act indifferent to other’s ways of expressing themselves when they don’t agree with us. I realize this is your blog and it is under your control – as it should be. But, I can’t help but wonder if a private email to the commentor have been better if you found it disdainful and simply blocking her post have been better?
Also, I am sorry and I hope it is OK to comment on parts of your entry (below) because I simply do not have time to go through all of your prior entries. I would like to revisit your blog as I think you have things that are important to say. Thank you for the book review; I did scan your link and found it valuable history.
I am taken by your words above that blacks insist their candidates “earn” their votes. Do you think that Senator Obama has earned the votes of the black people, and, for that matter, the white people? If so, in what way and how?
Your comment: “Winning, whether planned or not, merely due to the color of one’s skin, is racism. And white people are still winning.” Would this not be true of what is occurring in voting for Senator Obama? It has to work both ways, wouldn’t you agree in order for it to be a legitimate win and an “earned” win?
I also have a tremendous fear of what is to come in our society if we are to vote for a person based on her/his skin color or her/his gender. I am fearful, in the instance of Senator Obama, mostly for AA’s, that whites are not allowed to question him or what he stands for in fear of being labeled racist. If people do not see this, then they are looking through rose colored glasses. It illegitimizes all the work that has been done thus far in regards to racial biases and will tip the scales tremendously.
I cannot help but wonder if this was the wrong time to “do this?” Elect our first black president? Because, is he competent enough to do the job? I do not see that. Maybe you do. But, for the life of me, I cannot find anyone to tell me WHY he is the one for the job, other than the color of his skin. In my mind, his time would hae come later down the road; but we needed someone far more experienced and capable than him to dig us out of this mess we are in now.
This is not the time for Barack Obama.
When our society can see beyond color; stop making statements of voting for ____ IS fighting racism; stop saying “black/white” – then and only then will we have won the fight.
July 1, 2008 at 3:05 pm
iam0nly1
I’m sorry, but you have this all wrong.
I am African American and female, and I take issue with much of what you wrote here. First of all, while racism, poverty and war are all evils of our world, it’s shocking that you don’t also include sexism, homophobia, religious persecution, etc.
Further, voting for Obama IS NOT fighting racism, it’s succumbing to white guilt, racism, or failing to judge people based on their merits and qualifications. To vote for someone simply because you feel warm and fuzzy and it assuages your personal feelings of guilt about racism is not a legitimate reason to vote for someone. Further, race is not even real, it is a social construct. Barack Obama is not ethnically Black. His mother is white and his father is Kenyan. He is not even the descendent of slaves, indeed he is the descendent of slave owners and slave traders. All this talk of “fighting racism” by voting for Obama is absolutely baseless and does nothing more than prop up real racism.
In addition, I am afraid of Obama. Saying so does NOT make me a racist. Obama IS unqualified, he LACKS experience, he has DUBIOUS and CRIMINAL associates and friends, and he FLIP FLOPS on major issues. I do not know what Obama stands for because he has worked hard to make it so. He purposefully straddles the line on many issues so that he can be all things to all people in an effort to get elected.
People need to stop making this election about race and focus on what’s really at stake here. If you want to fight racism, get off your but and volunteer in your community, join the ACLU or the NAACP, lobby against Mandatory Minimum Sentencing and the Death Penalty, or investigate racial profiling in your area. But do not think that by pulling the lever for an unqualified multi-ethnic male for president is in any way fighting racism. After all the blatant race baiting of the Obama campaign, his election would indeed be a victory for racism.
July 1, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Sheri
Iam Only1: THANK YOU!!! I hope you don’t mind that I save your post because your words are SO eloquent. You are the type of person I would like to know!
July 1, 2008 at 3:16 pm
iam0nly1
Helenl
“When blacks use the term “uncle tom,” they are referring to blacks who have sold out: become white and forgotten where they came from, which is the black church and the struggle for freedom.”
Whoa, whoa, whoa, that is NOT what that means. Yes, in a sense it means they believe we have “sold out” but it is also a way to intimidate and denigrate other blacks. I have been called an “uncle tom” for excelling in school. I have been called an “uncle tom” for speaking proper English and disdaining misogynistic rap music. I have been called an “uncle tom” for dating white men. Calling someone an “uncle tom” is a manifestation of racism within the black community.
There are many in my community who are too caught up in competition and “being true to the race” (read: conforming to stereotypes). Condi and Colin should be held up as examples and role models in the Black community. Sadly, Kobe, and R. Kelly are given those mantles before people like Condi and Colin. It’s sad. My community has a lot of work to do, and it will not be sped along if whites continue to validate the behavior (as you have done here with your remarks concerning calling people “uncle toms” as though it is a legitimate way to hold blacks “accountable” for “selling out”). Racism, is racism, is racism. Blacks calling each other “uncle toms,” “house n*ggers” and “race traitors” is racism, not only against other blacks, but against whites, as these phrases paint whites as the enemy.
July 1, 2008 at 3:19 pm
iam0nly1
Go right ahead Sheri! Thanks for the compliment.
I just can’t stand all this ridiculous talk about fighting racism by voting for Obama. It’s absolutely baseless. MLK Jr. is rolling over in his grave over this. What happened to judging people by the content of their character?
July 1, 2008 at 3:29 pm
iam0nly1
Helenl:
“No RG, it isn’t about skin color. It’s about black people being true to their heritage, their history. It’s about black people understanding and continuuing the struggle for freedom.
I would vote for Edwards. I like his policies better than Rice’s. If Rice were elected, of course, Republicans would shout like they really “did” something. But sadly, Rice would be a “token” black and just a part of their reactionary agenda and wouldn’t move blacks toward their gaol one bit.
I think you are starting to “get” it. But you over-simplify.”
Helen, what exactly are you talking about? Isn’t voting for Obama and shouting that you really “did” something like “fight racism” exactly the same thing you are claiming the Republicans would? How dare you or anyone attempt to define the parameters of what constitutes “blacks moving toward their goal?”
It is this kind of talk that cripples the black community. This kind of talk leads to calling courageous leaders like Condi (and I’m a Democrat) “uncle toms” and “sell outs,” as though there is only one way to “achieve” or “overcome.” Senator Obama would be just as much of a “token” as Rice should he be elected. Further, would it not represent even more of a movement if the Condi, as a Republican, was elected president, never mind the fact that she is also female? It seems you are too determined to paint the Republicans as the racist enemy to recognize the strides they are making, or can potentially make. Isn’t more groundbreaking for the previously segregated school to have a black student body president than for the historically black school to have one?
Lastly, the idea that a white person is attempting to educate other whites on the intricacies and inner conflicts and contradictions of the black community is laughable to me, especially because most of what you have written here simply props up and legitimizes black racism.
July 1, 2008 at 3:30 pm
helenl
Hi Sherry,
RE: Lady. I get your point, but I guess this comes from teaching school. How many kids said, “Yes Ma’am,” but meant (by their tone of voice) “Go to Hell”? I think I heard that, perhaps wrongly.
RE: “When our society can see beyond color; stop making statements of voting for ____ IS fighting racism; stop saying “black/white” – then and only then will we have won the fight.”
Yes, but that day is not yet here. I think a black president will help bring that day closer, just a Jackie Robinson helped integrate baseball, and Thurgood Marshall did the Supreme Court. The President is our most visible political figure.
But no, race alone is not enough for me to vote for Obama. I am concerned with his youth. But he is right in that we need a change. Everything else is gravy. As far as African Americans are concerned, they do not have to think like I do nor explain the criteria they use to evaluate to me. If blacks choose a black men to represent them, I do not question their choice. My point is, white people cannot pick black leaders for black people. They can and must do that themselves.
I will be voting for Obama.
**
Hi iamOnly1. Welcome to my blog. You have made your point, and I see why you won’t be voting for Obama.
RE: “f you want to fight racism, get off your but and volunteer in your community, join the ACLU or the NAACP, lobby against Mandatory Minimum Sentencing and the Death Penalty, or investigate racial profiling in your area.”
I am a member of the NAACP. And I do lobby against the death penalty. Check my blog concerning Darrell B. Grayson.
RE: “But do not think that by pulling the lever for an unqualified multi-ethnic male for president is in any way fighting racism. After all the blatant race baiting of the Obama campaign, his election would indeed be a victory for racism.”
I do think I’ll be voting for Obama. And not just because he’s black, which is silly and not what I said. But I do think having a first black president is a step in the right direction. See my comment to Sherry. And according to the one-drop rule, Obama is black.
July 1, 2008 at 4:15 pm
iam0nly1
Helenl,
Your response has really saddened and shocked me.
First and foremost, by adhering to the racist and reprehensible “one-drop rule” WE ARE ALL BLACK! Thus, Obama would be our 44th black president as we all evolved and migrated from Africa. Which is exactly the point I was making earlier when I said that RACE IS NOT REAL. Ethnicity however is a legitimate category, and by that measure Obama is not black in the American sense. You might as well go to Australia, pick up an Aborigine and elect them “the first black president.”
As for your comment to Sherri, you have revealed your status as an apologist for black racism. When you say, “If blacks choose a black men to represent them, I do not question their choice” you legitimize black racism. You would not and should not say the same thing about whites. If a white person said they were voting for McCain so that they could have a white person represent them you would no doubt be outraged.
Essentially, in your response to Sherri, you revealed you are voting for Obama in part because he is black and in part “because we need change.” Exactly what change is he bringing? For the life of me I can’t find one supporter of his to explain exactly what he is going to change and how.
I know you are trying to help but you are simply supporting black racism.
July 1, 2008 at 4:31 pm
iam0nly1
Helenl,
“So think about this, a black president must be someone black people want.”
This is bunk on its face. A black president is a black president is a black president. Many blacks, such as myself, don’t like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, yet each of them have still broken some barriers and helped “the movement” in their own way. Malcolm and Martin were at odds as were many of their followers but they still managed to get things done. Garvey wanted all blacks to go back to Africa as a way to fight discrimination.
Moreover, if a black person is elected president without popular black support, it follows that she or he got a majority of white votes. You seem to be working from the premise that it is white racism that is the problem, thus whites voting overwhelmingly for a black candidate would in some way suggest they were not racist. Ending racism is ending racism, and it shouldn’t have to come at the terms blacks only.
Lastly, treating blacks as a monolith is offensive. As I have said, I am black and do not support Obama. Does he need 100% black support in order to be “who black people want?” In addition, sometimes what people want isn’t good for them and they vote against their self interests. It is my belief that Hillary did more for the black community than Obama has ever done. I believe Hillary’s policies and experience would have benefitted the country and blacks more than Obama. Is my dissent enough, or are “uncle toms” not allowed?
July 1, 2008 at 4:36 pm
helenl
Hi iamOnly1,
I don’t know why you are “saddened and shocked.”
I agree “WE ARE ALL BLACK”; “we all evolved and migrated from Africa,” that “RACE IS NOT REAL,” and that ethnicity not only is “legitimate” but also important to figuring out exactly where we (as individuals) fit into the great story and history of humankind.
RE: “As for your comment to Sherri, you have revealed your status as an apologist for black racism. When you say, “If blacks choose a black men to represent them, I do not question their choice” you legitimize black racism. You would not and should not say the same thing about whites. If a white person said they were voting for McCain so that they could have a white person represent them you would no doubt be outraged.”
No. I’d think they were telling the truth.
As far as supporting black racism. I don’t believe in black racism. I think racism is a combination of prejudice plus the power to keep the victims as an underclass. In the US, this means racism is a white problem.
I understand black on black hatred. But that isn’t racism. I understand blacks who hate whites and don’t want anything to do with them. but that’s not racism. Racism means keeping blacks down (as a group not as individuals).
I studied African American history and religion (along with creative writing), including two classes on slavery (US and worldwide) at Wake Forest University. My master’s thesis is entitled “Making All Things New: The Redemptive Value of Unmerited Suffering in the Life and Works of Martin Luther King Jr.” In other words, I spent two years studying and writing about the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s. My professors felt I’d done a good enough job to accept my thesis and give me my degree.
So yes, I am “trying to help.” And I will continue no matter how many people leave comments indicating I am wrong.
And if you’ve been awake during Dubya’s watch, you’ll know he started a war, allowed the economy to plummet, and made most of the world hate the US. What part of that do you not want changed?
And, of course, Obama doesn’t need support from 100% of the blacks. He needs to win in the electoral college the same as every other president did. This isn’t about blackness or lack thereof, it’s about who we want for president, who will bring our country out of shit-pit created by the current Republican president.
RE: “I believe Hillary’s policies and experience would have benefitted the country and blacks more than Obama.”
Me, too. But she isn’t running. Obama is our best choice NOW. And a vote for him will fight racism to boot.
July 1, 2008 at 5:13 pm
common sense
“I understand black on black hatred. But that isn’t racism. I understand blacks who hate whites and don’t want anything to do with them. but that’s not racism. Racism means keeping blacks down (as a group not as individuals).”
Excuse me, but this statement is just absurd. If you think that racism only exists against blacks from white people then you’re never going to be part of the solution. You DO want a solution, right?
So back to the blacks who hate whites and don’t want anything to do with them….what exactly is that hatred based on? Um, their race?? And you don’t see that as racist? Amazing.
July 1, 2008 at 5:20 pm
helenl
Hi Common Sense,
Welcome to my blog.
Of course, I want a solution. Don’t you think prejudice is a bad thing? Or would you rather fight about words?
BTW, did you see the quote on my header?
July 1, 2008 at 5:30 pm
common sense
Yes, I think prejudice is disgusting. In all forms, no exceptions. Saying that it’s only a white person’s problem is a cop-out that I will not accept. No one should be willing to allow that in the 21st century.
July 1, 2008 at 5:37 pm
helenl
Common Sense,
Let me repeat myself: “As far as supporting black racism. I don’t believe in black racism. I think racism is a combination of prejudice plus the power to keep the victims as an underclass. In the US, this means racism is a white problem.
I understand black on black hatred. But that isn’t racism. I understand blacks who hate whites and don’t want anything to do with them. but that’s not racism. Racism means keeping blacks down (as a group not as individuals).”
Okay, Racism is a white problem. But prejudice (including black people hating white people because they are white) is an anybody problem.
So where do we disagree? Or do we?
Racism is bad. Prejudice is bad. The goal is equality and to get along with everyone.
July 1, 2008 at 5:44 pm
helenl
BTW, have any of you folks coming here for this entry read my latest poem. “Seriously Dangerous” at http://poetryfriends.blogspot.com/2008/06/poem-by-helen-losse.html ?
Leave comment at http://helenl.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/seriously-dangerous/
July 1, 2008 at 6:08 pm
JSF
Voting for a president to fight racism? Are you mad?
You are telling me if I don’t vote for him, that makes me racist? I don’t like BO and won’t vote for him.
Part of BO very much scares me. I don’t care if it’s the black part or the white part, I am scared. I won’t vote for a liar and a flip-flopper that courts the relgious right (who have made this dyke their mortal enemy). Who refused to be photographed with the mayor of San Fran. Who thinks I don’t have the same rights as everyone else. Who ran a dirty (surrogate dirty) campaign. Who lied about FISA.
Every time you tell someone who HAS fought racism, who is married to someone of another race, or who is themselves black or of mixed race that they are not fighting racism if they don’t vote for this guy, then you are calling that person a racist and denigrating their real reasons for disliking him — and you lose one more vote.
We pick presidents for reasons besides race. Get over it.
July 1, 2008 at 6:29 pm
helenl
Hi JSF,
I don’t think I’m mad. I’ll check.
I am NOT telling you that “if [you] don’t vote for him, that makes [you] racist.” White people are either racists or recovering racists. See other posts on this blog. I choose to recover. You choose what you will.
I am telling you that if you DO vote for Obama, you will be voting against racism as a bi-product.
Did anyone read the post I actually wrote?
July 1, 2008 at 6:50 pm
reenactor19th
I understand this is off-topic, but I hope that people will respond to this question. It is a survey for a class I am taking, and is a final project. Actually, it’s two questions.
1. Is war evil? Why or why not?
2. Why is peace deemed “morally” right?
If you respond, please don’t be assinine with statements like, “Because it is”. Feel free to reference any war in history, however, this is academic so editorializing one way or the other on this administration’s policies is not helpful, and frankly, I don’t have time for it.
Also, if you respond, please be kind enough to answer the questions in full, but also understand that I am reading A LOT of these, so I don’t need a dissertation. By responding, you are authorizing me to use your responses in full or in part, if you wish to be credited then put a name at the end of your response that you wish to be credited by.
Let me say, this is not going to be published, and I realize the above is not legally binding, I just wanted to you to be aware, so that if you do sue me, we will both know you are lying.
Thank you, please respond to this e-mail: perfecttripdude@yahoo.com
July 1, 2008 at 7:00 pm
reenactor19th
I apologize. Wrong address. Send to reenactor_19th@hotmail.com
July 1, 2008 at 7:06 pm
JSF
Yes, I can read. You said, “How many times have I heard someone say they are “afraid” of Obama? Well, to conquer fear, we must face it. ”
I can say I am afraid of him without it being a racial issue. You have definitely made the leap that someone who is afraid of him is afraid of it because they are under the spell of racism.
This is calling the person a racist.
July 1, 2008 at 8:03 pm
iam0nly1
Helenl,
“White people are either racists or recovering racists.”
I don’t know what you have read or been told, but this is simply not true. Some people are capable of not being racist. It begins with the upbringing. Would you mind explaining how you are “recovering” from your racism?
Further, racism is not just a white problem. If “common sense” doesn’t disagree with your racism vs prejudice false dichotomy, then I do.
What do you call black people hating Latinos or Hispanics or vice versa? What do you call black anti-semites? It’s racism, Helen. Disliking someone, preferring people or doing anything because of race is racism. Period.
If I, as a black woman, go around stringing up white people because they are white, it’s racism. Racism is prejudice. And, btw, black people can be racist, I know many of them. Blacks claiming that whites need to be “exterminated” is just flat out racism, and it should not be condoned or seen as a lesser degree of hatred.
Electing a multiethnic individual is complete symbolism. In times like these we need action. Obama does not provide that action, nor does he pass the threshold to be considered a legitimate candidate for the presidency. He should not get the benefit of the doubt, nor be propped up because he happens to have a year round tan. The thought of it is laughable.
July 1, 2008 at 8:39 pm
John
Helenl, You are really a [ugly word remove]. Do you even know what racism is?
The fact that you guys are supporting the most [a bunch of nasty, ugly words removed] speaks volumes about your [word removed]
July 1, 2008 at 8:52 pm
reenactor19th
Dude, John, we’ve kept the forum clean of name-calling. Hopefully, you will continue to help us.
July 1, 2008 at 9:26 pm
helenl
Hi Reenactor19th, Thanks for dropping by my blog. And for telling John to behave. I’ll e-mail you a comment.
Hi JFS, I make leaps all the time. If you want to understand me, read my blog. If not, get your own and say what you want.
Hi IamOnly1, I don’t care if you disagree with my “dichotomy” or not. Call any of these kinds of hatred anything you want. Just why argue word definitions on my blog, when your real point is, you aren’t for Obama. Fine. Don’t be for Obama. Who would say you don’t have that right?
Obama is 35 years old, a natural born citizen. What “threshold” must he pass to be “considered a legitimate candidate for the presidency”? What has he done to not be given “the benefit of the doubt”? So, laugh.
Hi John, Welcome to my blog. Apparently, you didn’t read the about page where I clearly state, “SPAM, RACIST OR PREJUDICIAL LINKS OR REMARKS, AND PERSONAL ATTACKS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED ON THIS BLOG AND WILL BE DELETED.” Reenactor19th is right. No name calling. There is a big difference between objecting to a person’s ideas and calling him/her names. I deleted the essence out of what you said. Now either act right or go home.
July 3, 2008 at 7:38 am
JSF
“Hi JFS, I make leaps all the time.”
– Well, OK. Leap away. How’s it working for you lately that your post-racial candinate is throwing the Left under buses left and right these days?
“If you want to understand me, read my blog. If not, get your own and say what you want.”
– Gosh, I thought how it worked was like, you create a blog where you write things, and it has these fields at the bottom where others are asked to write things, and then ….
July 3, 2008 at 9:54 am
helenl
Hi JSF, “Gosh, I thought how it worked was like, you create a blog where you write things, and it has these fields at the bottom where others are asked to write things, and then ….”
And then, what? The purpose of my blog is to write about my poetry and the poetry of others, to promote the breakdown of racism, poverty and war. I write about things that matter to me. The WWW is very big. If you don’t like my blog, visit others. If you do, stay and feel welcome.
Obama is the candidate I choose to endorse. If you want to endorse someone else on a blog, get your own:They’re free. And so am I to tell you Obama isn’t “throwing anybody under a bus”; he’s in the difficult position of campaigning for the presidency. He has to try to be “all things to all people,” which is, of course, impossible. But he is a black man, so we can fight racism if we vote for him.
July 4, 2008 at 6:50 am
Old-Man
Helenl, I like your blog, and I agree with the vast majority of the things you said in this post. I am neither Republican nor Democrat. I’ve been independent since Nixon, and every political compass test I take, I seem to fall dead center. But the one thing I think I am hearing you say is that we should vote for Obama to show we are fighting (or willing to fight) racism. I haven’t decided who I will vote for in November, but I can assure you I will never vote for anyone for President just for the sole purpose of fighting racism or just because he is black, just as I wouldn’t vote for someone just because he or she is white. And if anyone else does, then I can not believe they have the country’s best interest at heart. Racism, as you said, is unfortunately alive and well, but this country has much more serious problems than racism that will destroy it. That said, I just made the comment to my wife the other day that Barack Obama has an opportunity to be the best President this country has seen in many, many decades, and I hope he seizes upon that opportunity. I believe he will be President because I do not think McCain (or maybe any other Republican) can win because of what the Bush administration has done to our country over the past 7 plus years. Knowing what I know today, I would probably vote for Obama, but I am paying a very lot of attention to what each candidate is saying (and not saying) and doing, so I will hold off on my final decision until later in the year. Good luck on your blog.
July 4, 2008 at 10:01 am
helenl
Hi-Old-Man, Welcome to my blog. I agree with you 100%.
I don’t know why anyone thinks I will vote for Obama only by race. There are many reasons to vote for Obama over McCain. For example his domestic policy (health care) and his foreign policy (end the war and get along with other nations). But when I vote for Obama, which I surely plan to do, it will be a vote against racism.
Even campaigning for Obama helps break down racism, because it shows people of different races working together toward a common goal: Electing Obama.
This thread has been red-hot only because of my title and some of the comments by people who didn’t read (or understand) what I said (or even know the discussion began on Bookworm’s blog). LOL
In my post I said, Voting for Obama is a perfect opportunity to begin the fight against those triple evils:[racism, poverty, and war]. That is true because Obama will fight those evils not because he is black.
McCain is not against the war. McCain is not in favor of helping the poor (not in favor of health care for the poor). So how can we fight racism by voting for him? The triple evils must be fought together, according to Martin Luther King Jr. Voting for Obama is a vote to fight poverty, a vote to fight violence (war) and a vote to fight racism. Win. Win. Win.
Could a white person fight the triple evils? Yes. Try voting for Obama.
And everybody, Stop saying “this is the greatest country in the world,” but you’ll be voting for the “lesser of two evils.”
July 10, 2008 at 1:25 pm
white guilt
Hi , Im white guilt and Im here to tell you to let me go. Youve never owned slaves, youve never done anything to harm blacks, so let me go. You have no reason to feel guilty, other than thinking John Edwards could have done anything good besides lying and being a hypocrite.
Again, let me go.
July 10, 2008 at 1:46 pm
helenl
Ha ha.
July 15, 2008 at 10:24 pm
This Is What I Meant « Windows Toward the World
[...] This is what I meant, when I said, “Voting For Obama IS Voting Against Racism.” [...]
October 12, 2009 at 11:28 am
Federal Farmer
I agree. if you are interested, pls see my posting at http://soozah.wordpress.com/2009/10/12/rush-limbough-on-the-banking-queen-and-the-magic-negro/
October 14, 2009 at 12:39 pm
purecommonsense
The Left calls every attack on Obama racist because they have no intellectual substance to say in its place. They’re backed into a corner – so they play the race card!
Ok, so you voted for Obama just because he was black. At least you admit it.
October 14, 2009 at 12:51 pm
helenl
Hi Pure Common Sense. Do what? You don’t even know me. How do you know why I voted for Obama? Did you read my master’s thesis, “Making All Things New: The Redemptive Value of Unmerited Suffering In the Life and Works of Martin Luther King Jr.”? I guess you put in more years than I did at a major university studying African American history, so you know all about that “intellectual substance.” Nice try.