Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
Published on January 20, 2009 By Dr Guy In Politics

Two Months ago, America validated Martin Luther King's vision.  Today, Liberals, the Mainstream Media and the vested racial animosity groups drove us back 45 years.

2 months ago, America elected a black man as president.  Disregarding his race as a factor in stating they wanted a change.  But for the past year, Liberals, Race Ambulance Chasers, the Mainstream Media have worked doggedly to destroy King's vision.  And to turn back the hands of time so that instead of being able to judge a man on the content of his character, they are forcing America to judge him based upon the color of his skin.

Many people marched with King back in 63.  Wanting to keep alive a dream that many of us shared, and still share.  And some of us want to see yet to come.  But it is not now.  Today, America turned a deaf ear to King and instead marched backwards to the days when the content of a man's character was secondary to the color of his skin.

For many of us who have fought long and hard to realize that dream it is indeed a dark day.  It is not the fault of Obama, for he is a man who ran for and was elected president.  It is the fault of the liberals and Mainstream media that must force us to think of him not as a man, but as a black man.  It is very frustrating to see 45 years of work swept away with the new racists of 21st century America.

It is indeed a sad day for America.  I only hope that we can rebuild from this set back that has beset us.  And one day, the man elected president will not be known as "the <insert qualifier here> President", but as the American President.


Comments (Page 4)
8 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last
on Jan 21, 2009

Why should I?

Because you seem to willfully ignorant of what this means too blacks.

Why dont you ask your liberal friends why Obama has to be treated differently?

Because I nor my liberal friends have treated him differently and we don't think he should be treated differently.

Why any criticism of OUR president is seen as racist?

I nor any of my liberal friends see criticism of Obama as racism and I have not seen the MSM equate any legitimate criticism of him too racism.

You see things only in black and white. And that is the betrayal of King's ideals.

I think we've discussed enough for you to know I don't fit in some liberal mold. Stop thinking so black and white. I think MLK was under no illusion that his dream was going to happen overnight. I think he would be stunned at how fast we're making progress.

And never will be as long as you make it an issue. Yes, we are going to have some KKK bigots out there, but why are YOU catering to them? WHy not cater to the 53% that voted for him (minus the racists who did)? Or the 46% who did not vote for him, but not because he was black? (again a small percentage).

It is the Liberals and Media that seem to think we must look at him for the color of his skin, and not the content of his character. Some will, but November 4 proved that your way of thinking is definitely in the minority, and the biggest self interest block perpetuating it, are the liberals and Media (the bigots are a small part of it, but then any excuse to perpetuate it seems to be fine with Liberals and the Media).

There's nothing wrong with just acknowledging someone's race it's not perpetrating anything, it's when that information is used to define them that it becomes racism. How are we to work on ending racism if we can't even acknowledge race? Is it your plan that if it's never spoken of it again it will just go away? I'm perfectly aware that the are elements in our society that don't want racism to go away however there're not the ones calibrating.

And the WHOLE point you miss is that it happened 2 months ago, not today or yesterday.

Yes and this was the party for that event 2 months ago, what's your point?

And here ladies and gents, we see the validation of the point again. Calling someone black is not a perjorative, nor is calling someone a racist - if they are one. You are not a "Burn a cross on the lawn" racist, but an institutional racist. You have to perpetuate racism to maintain your sense of purpose and power base. Whether you burn a cross on a lawn, or do it for other reasons, the end result is the same.

The discussion is not nasty. ANy more than telling the emperor he has no clothes is nasty. To this comment, the only "nastiness" has been in the feelings that have been hurt when a mirror was held up to individuals.

You know DG you had a point here but you've blown it so far out of proportion, twisted and buried it under so many absolutes, it's unrecognizable. Then you accuse me of only seeing things in black and white. You've tried to distort the meaning of "institutional racism" to include just the recognition of race. One example of institutional racism is a barrier to employment or professional advancement based on race, imagine that. Nothing that I've said here or anything the MSM has reported on the inauguration qualifies as IR or any other form of racism.

 

 

 

on Jan 21, 2009

There's nothing wrong with just acknowledging someone's race it's not perpetrating anything, it's when that information is used to define them that it becomes racism. How are we to work on ending racism if we can't even acknowledge race?

But the media in particular has gone far beyond simply acknowledging that Obama is black.  Yesterday it was uttered over and over again that Obama is a "Black Man" and he is now a "Black President" rather than Obama is a "Man" who happens to be black or that he is "The President of the United States" who happens to be black.  They were emphasising the race issue above all else.  They made it seem like it wasn't Obama's policies or his campaign rhetoric that got him the office, it was his race.  That is blatant racism and for us to truly fulfill Dr. King's dreams we need to leave race out of it and just let Obama be the President that he is.

You've tried to distort the meaning of "institutional racism" to include just the recognition of race.

Doc Guy didn't do that at all.  He merely applied the definition to "Institutional Racism" to what the media was doing all day yesterday when they kept referring to Obama as a "Black Man" insinuating that he got to the Presidency more because of his skin color than because of his campaigns message.

I nor any of my liberal friends see criticism of Obama as racism and I have not seen the MSM equate any legitimate criticism of him too racism.

The NPR piece that was cited in an earlier comment did just that, it labeled all those who didn't vote for Obama as racists and to be honest since they were doing that they were equally calling all those who voted for him racists as well because if the only reason to vote against the man was his race than that must have also been the only reason to vote for him.

on Jan 21, 2009

You totally missed it. This is not about the celebration. I clearly stated that I understand and welcome it. This is about how the media and liberals are holding him up as a BLACK President.

And that has to do with the point how? I have not commented on his popularity or actually the man himself (except in passing). You and Stubby are trying to make this a blog on Obama, and it is not, nor will I allow it to be. It is not about Obama, it is about the racist that are trying to turn back the clock 45 years (and even 2 months) and tell us that now we have to start over again.

And in that, I will resist you. Sorry, but racism, in all its insidious forms, is abhorent, and I will call it out when I see it.

The celebration is due to the fact that he is BLACK. You don't think that is significant? That is a part of what all the attention is about. Part of it is his charisma. How does that trash King or make me a racist for celebrating our nation's accomplishment?

Barack Obama is a Black man who is POTUS. Is that not what you are irrate about? That I would dare say he is a Black man and President in the same sentence?

on Jan 21, 2009

but you can't realize the dream of King unless realize the signifigance of the day when the position of the American President is held by someone whose identity proves that the dream is reality.

No. Actually you can ONLY realise the dream if you DO NOT realise the significance of this day.

The significant day would be the inauguration of the first President whose skin colour is not even part of the news because nobody cares. Maybe that already happened. But if it did, the achievement was undone this year.

 

on Jan 21, 2009

The NPR piece that was cited in an earlier comment did just that, it labeled all those who didn't vote for Obama as racists and to be honest since they were doing that they were equally calling all those who voted for him racists as well because if the only reason to vote against the man was his race than that must have also been the only reason to vote for him.

You have totally misquoted the NPR piece. I heard the same piece (I think). Nothing like that was said.

on Jan 21, 2009

Yesterday it was uttered over and over again that Obama is a "Black Man" and he is now a "Black President" rather than Obama is a "Man" who happens to be black or that he is "The President of the United States" who happens to be black.

What is so wrong with saying a Black man is President? Why does that bother you so much? Does it bother you to say a Texan was President (can't think of what you call someone from Illinois)? Does that make you a Texan supremasist?

on Jan 21, 2009

What is so wrong with saying a Black man is President? Why does that bother you so much?

Because it is racist.  Identifying him as a BLACK man is racist.  Obama is a "Man" NOT a "Black Man".  Identifying him by his race is racist.  Dr. King wished that we would reach a day when we would judge someone "not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" but whenever Obama is identified as a "Black Man" they are doing the exact opposite of what Dr. King wanted.

on Jan 21, 2009

DG, I think I understand part of where you are coming from but I think you have read a great deal into what has gone on in the past couple of days. This historic event is not historic if a Black man is not realized to be President. I don't recall anyone (other than some of the Black journalists I hear on the radio) refer to him as a Black President. He is not the President of only the Black part of this nation, I agree.

But to recognize he is Black does not trash Kings ideals. His ideals transcended race without ignoring it. It sounds like you would re-write the climax of his speech in Washington to read:

And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children,  men who happen to maybe be black and men who happen to be white, some religious people from some different places, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old  spiritual from certain people among us, "We are all together now. No big deal. It's as is should be. Anyone who deems otherwise is racist."

No. He acknowledges the differences in humanity and the superiority of mankind to recognize them without them being barriers to loving mankind. It reads:

And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!

Please tell me you believe that is the ideal of King as well? Then how to trash that by acknowledging that Obams is in fact a black man?

on Jan 21, 2009

Because it is racist. Identifying him as a BLACK man is racist. Obama is a "Man" NOT a "Black Man". Identifying him by his race is racist. Dr. King wished that we would reach a day when we would judge someone "not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" but whenever Obama is identified as a "Black Man" they are doing the exact opposite of what Dr. King wanted.

I totally disagree. You are racist for seeing a persons ethnicity. You are racist when when make decisions about a person based on race. THAT is what King wrote about and talked about. Read some of his work and you will see that.

on Jan 21, 2009

Racism works both ways.  Affirmative Action is legalized racism, just because it benefits a minority doesn't make it any less racist to treat one person different from another based on the color of their skin.  Based on my admitedly limited knowledge of Dr. King I would think that he would have been completely against Affirmative Action because you are judging someone based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.

I think so as well but at the time we really didn't have a choice, the only other option would have been to make them all wards of the government. Now and perhaps for quite some time it's been counterproductive and I think Obama's the man to end it. 

But the media in particular has gone far beyond simply acknowledging that Obama is black. Yesterday it was uttered over and over again that Obama is a "Black Man" and he is now a "Black President" rather than Obama is a "Man" who happens to be black or that he is "The President of the United States" who happens to be black. They were emphasising the race issue above all else. They made it seem like it wasn't Obama's policies or his campaign rhetoric that got him the office, it was his race. That is blatant racism and for us to truly fulfill Dr. King's dreams we need to leave race out of it and just let Obama be the President that he is.

Why can't he be both a man and a black man? I didn't see any reporting on the inauguration suggest that that his race was a factor in his win. 

Doc Guy didn't do that at all. He merely applied the definition to "Institutional Racism" to what the media was doing all day yesterday when they kept referring to Obama as a "Black Man" insinuating that he got to the Presidency more because of his skin color than because of his campaigns message.

Again this is a non-sequitur. Just acknowledging that he is the first black president does not follow that his race was a factor in him becoming so.

on Jan 21, 2009

wow! how did this article get passed me? This is a very powerful article, short, sweet and right to the heart of the matter. Very good points made here DocG, Whew! re-reading it was just as power filled as the first read.

on Jan 21, 2009

You have totally misquoted the NPR piece. I heard the same piece (I think). Nothing like that was said.

Do you remember what do you think you heard the same piece?

on Jan 21, 2009

I am just going to bring up one more thing that I think gives proof toward what Doc is saying here: Prior to all of this hoopla over it being the first Black president and all of the references to race, my kids were blissfully blind to color as being an issue.  They are being raised in a VERY culturally diverse area.  They have friends of all colors and religions.  When they would describe a new friend, color was usually way down the list in the description (usually after things like "big head" or "has glasses").  They were forced to watch the inauguration at school and are force fed all of the "African American" issues.  They know more about "Black History" than any other part of history.  So I see that as a huge step backward in the goal in MLK's dream of color not being an issue.  Our kids were on the right track and they just got "schooled" on our American reality.

on Jan 21, 2009

i gonna put a bit more stock in what people like john lewis, julian bond, andrew young and charles evers propose than someone such as yourself.

Of course you will! Because you are a racist. You only see the color of a man's skin, not the content of his character.

or...because i'd expect those who knew and worked closely with king--as i would any other person's friends and associates--much more likely to accurately speculate as to his possible reaction to this election.

you are going to Trust an OJ Simpson, before you trust any white man.

don't surprise me a bit you'd claim lewis, bond, young and evers no different than simpson.

Racism is not logical, it is emotional, and so appeals to logic and facts do not work.

not logical, emotional and unaffected by appeals to logic and facts?  i can't think of anyone in ju who's been more frequently characterized in that manner--sometimes with those exact words--by more people than you yourself.  if you're gonna make this sorta claim:

many of us who have fought long and hard to realize that dream

why is it outta line for someone to prompt you for details.  you undercut your own credibility by accusing me of being a racist while proferring--instead of any sort of answer--an overly emotional, illogical rant totally devoid of fact.

can't think of a better message for you to deliver to your political allies with a penchant for referring to obama's new crib as 'the black house.'

MM had an article on the worst racist comments he has heard about our new President. And I see where they are coming from. The racists that call themselves liberals.

only mm himself attributed to republicans the remark he quoted before (very much to his credit) castigating them for having sunk so low.  when i suggested you consider doing something similar, you took it to the bizarro planet as usual and did exactly the opposite (tho not unexpected).

 

 

on Jan 22, 2009

Our kids were on the right track and they just got "schooled" on our American reality.

Excellent summary!

When I was a young kid I thought black men were English because they spoke only English. I didn't realise that skin colour had a meaning in itself.

8 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last