Race and Politics

[gc1765]

So I was watching CNN the other day, and they had a special on race and politics. It seemed to me that they talked obsessively about the fact that Obama is black. And I wonder, is this a good thing - making race an issue? Why is he viewed as a black man running for president rather than just a person running for president? I like Obama, but not because of the colour of his skin - nor do I dislike him because of the colour of his skin. The colour of his skin is irrelevant to me. But does defining him by his race, especially in the media, actually cause racism? I mean, if we keep telling people how "different" they are, isn't that bound to create racism? I just can't believe that the colour of a person's skin is an issue any more than the colour of their shirt. I don't see the colour of shirt that a person wears being an issue in politics, and I don't see any discrimination based on the colour of a person's shirt, so why is skin so different? If we treated one race the way we treat people who wear blue shirts, and treat another race the way we treat people who wear red shirts (i.e. the same), would there be as much racism as there is "shirt-ism" (i.e. none)?

Any thoughts? Does defining people based on race create more racism or less racism?

[Melanie_]

The focus on Obama being black is illogical to me. He has a black father and a white mother, so he is equally black and white. You could as easily call him white as black, but somehow that doesn't happen - even though he was raised in an affluent, primarily white neighbourhood by his white mother, with little contact with his black father. I'd rather see the focus be on where he stands on issues than on the pigmentation of his skin.

[jacobhelliwell]

I really don`t think CNN is trying to make it an issue, but that is not to say it is not an issue. The fact that the United States has never had a non-male and non-white president resides with many Americans. For example, in the South Carolina primary, 78% of African-Americans voted for Obama. It is not an issue of prejudice, but of pride (in the words of CNN not mine).

Many votes are based on looks or name recognition. I heard (can`t remember from where) that 80% of those seeking reelection in the USA win. Many people see Clinton and Obama as progressive choices for the US, they are not sexist or racist, they just accept that their victory will send signs all over the world about the progression of the US from a white dominated society to an equal society.

[gc1765]

I really don`t think CNN is trying to make it an issue, but that is not to say it is not an issue. The fact that the United States has never had a non-male and non-white president resides with many Americans. For example, in the South Carolina primary, 78% of African-Americans voted for Obama. It is not an issue of prejudice, but of pride (in the words of CNN not mine).

Many votes are based on looks or name recognition. I heard (can`t remember from where) that 80% of those seeking reelection in the USA win. Many people see Clinton and Obama as progressive choices for the US, they are not sexist or racist, they just accept that their victory will send signs all over the world about the progression of the US from a white dominated society to an equal society.

You make some good points...

I'm not saying that it's not an issue, obviously it is. But whether the fact that it's an issue is a good thing or a bad thing.

I think that defining people based on their race has a lot to do with racism. Telling people "you're different, because you have different pigmentation in your skin" causes racism, IMO. Segregation was all about "you have a different skin colour, so you have to drink from this fountain, or sit at the back of the bus". I think that telling people how different they are is part of the problem. Now, I'm not trying to say that CNN caused racism. Obviously racism has been around for a long time. But I think part of the root of the problem of racism is defining people based on the colour of their skin. And I think that continuing to make race an issue will not get rid of racism. If we stopped making such a big deal of race, it would still take a long time to rid the world of racism. But I think the more we make race an issue, the longer it will take to get rid of racism.

I dunno, just a thought. I could be wrong...

[PoliAgno]

So I was watching CNN the other day, and they had a special on race and politics. It seemed to me that they talked obsessively about the fact that Obama is black. And I wonder, is this a good thing - making race an issue? Why is he viewed as a black man running for president rather than just a person running for president? I like Obama, but not because of the colour of his skin - nor do I dislike him because of the colour of his skin. The colour of his skin is irrelevant to me. But does defining him by his race, especially in the media, actually cause racism? I mean, if we keep telling people how "different" they are, isn't that bound to create racism? I just can't believe that the colour of a person's skin is an issue any more than the colour of their shirt. I don't see the colour of shirt that a person wears being an issue in politics, and I don't see any discrimination based on the colour of a person's shirt, so why is skin so different? If we treated one race the way we treat people who wear blue shirts, and treat another race the way we treat people who wear red shirts (i.e. the same), would there be as much racism as there is "shirt-ism" (i.e. none)?

Any thoughts? Does defining people based on race create more racism or less racism?

Depends on who you ask. I must admit I do think it would be wicked awesome if a woman won, if only to piss off some people .

Edited January 27, 2008 by PoliAgno

[noahbody]

Depends on who you ask. I must admit I do think it would be wicked awesome if a woman won, if only to piss off some people .

Are you saying Hillary Clinton is a woman?

[August1991]

So I was watching CNN the other day, and they had a special on race and politics. It seemed to me that they talked obsessively about the fact that Obama is black. And I wonder, is this a good thing - making race an issue?

People tend to vote on racial or religious lines - minorities moreso because they usually have no choice but to vote for some who is not their race or religion. Minorities are also very attuned to a candidate who, while not their religion or race, is attuned to them.

Canadian history offers several examples of this. I find your question naive and even surprising, assuming that you're Canadian. Wifrid Laurier was Canada's first Catholic PM - he somehow got elected. Stephen Harper is doing well in Quebec now. Another example is Margaret Thatcher. This is how a politican crosses over.

In comparison, I find Obama's campaign remarkably narrow and I blame this on the Democratic Party. It has been taken over by "identity politics".

Edited January 27, 2008 by August1991

[PoliAgno]

Are you saying Hillary Clinton is a woman?

Are you saying she isn't one just because she is running for office?

[Rue]

So I was watching CNN the other day, and they had a special on race and politics. It seemed to me that they talked obsessively about the fact that Obama is black. And I wonder, is this a good thing - making race an issue? Why is he viewed as a black man running for president rather than just a person running for president? I like Obama, but not because of the colour of his skin - nor do I dislike him because of the colour of his skin. The colour of his skin is irrelevant to me. But does defining him by his race, especially in the media, actually cause racism? I mean, if we keep telling people how "different" they are, isn't that bound to create racism? I just can't believe that the colour of a person's skin is an issue any more than the colour of their shirt. I don't see the colour of shirt that a person wears being an issue in politics, and I don't see any discrimination based on the colour of a person's shirt, so why is skin so different? If we treated one race the way we treat people who wear blue shirts, and treat another race the way we treat people who wear red shirts (i.e. the same), would there be as much racism as there is "shirt-ism" (i.e. none)?

Any thoughts? Does defining people based on race create more racism or less racism?

I totally concur with your comments. I think understanding why people discriminate is important and how certain issues are of unique or particular interest to certain groups is important but I have to agree with you and I am not sure if it will ever change. But people like you and me see a human first and so that is what counts and maybe there are many more like us-more then we think. So maybe things are changing and this will become a moot point centuries from now.

[margrace]

A quote from a woman in Iceland hoping to be the next Prime Minister, "Iceland will not tolerate that some people are very rich and others are very poor' Iceland was the first country to have a women Prime Minister. Can you imagine the furor if this was the policy of an American wannbe president.

[M.Dancer]

Iceland was the first country to have a women Prime Minister.

Ummm.....no.

Iceland has never had a female prime minister.

[margrace]

Pardon me for talkin in Your face senior I guess that should be president or Chief of state.

[M.Dancer]

Pardon me for talkin in Your face senior I guess that should be president or Chief of state.

Still wrong.

[gc1765]

People tend to vote on racial or religious lines - minorities moreso because they usually have no choice but to vote for some who is not their race or religion. Minorities are also very attuned to a candidate who, while not their religion or race, is attuned to them.

Canadian history offers several examples of this. I find your question naive and even surprising, assuming that you're Canadian. Wifrid Laurier was Canada's first Catholic PM - he somehow got elected. Stephen Harper is doing well in Quebec now. Another example is Margaret Thatcher. This is how a politican crosses over.

Obviously people tend to vote on racial or religious lines. No one would dispute that.

I think you completely misinterpreted my question, or else chose not to answer it. My question was does making race an issue a GOOD thing or a BAD thing? IOW, does it tend to cause racism? This issue goes a lot deeper than this political campaign, and politics in general.

In comparison, I find Obama's campaign remarkably narrow and I blame this on the Democratic Party. It has been taken over by "identity politics".

I disagree. I have very rarely, if ever, heard Obama talk about race. But when I turn on the TV, or read the newspaper, that's all they are talking about. Again, this issue goes a lot deeper than this campaign. Racism has been around a lot longer than that. My question, though, was whether the fact that race is an issue (defining people based on their race, or telling people that because they have different skin colour they are "different") contributes to racism? If you think you have answer to that question, by all means share it with us.

[August1991]

I think completely misinterpreted my question, or else chose not to answer it. My question was does making race an issue a GOOD thing or a BAD thing? IOW, does it tend to cause racism? This issue goes a lot deeper than this political campaign, and politics in general.

Well, you should direct that question at North America's Left since it is the Democrats and NDP/Liberals who seem to seek gender/racial equality in their candidates. They are usually proponents of positive discrimination.

Meanwhile, on the Right, without further ado, a WASP PM gets votes in Quebec and the current US Secretary of State happens to be a black woman. If there's any lesson here, it's that a candidate should present themselves and get on with the job of campaigning. It would be wrong to ignore how people form first impressions but that's not something to run an entire campaign on.

Pierre Trudeau had trouble at first campaigning in English Canada (as Stephane Dion does now) but after awhile, it's politics as usual.

I have very rarely, if ever, heard Obama talk about race. But when I turn on the TV, or read the newspaper, that's all they are talking about. Again, this issue goes a lot deeper than this campaign. Racism has been around a lot longer than that. My question, though, was whether the fact that race is an issue (defining people based on their race, or telling people that because they have different skin colour they are "different") contributes to racism? If you think you have answer to that question, by all means share it with us.

On the contrary, Obama speaks about race indirectly when he speaks of "uniting" the United States. But I'll agree that Obama's problem is in part the problem of the Democratic Party over the past 30 years or so. They have made "identity politics" into a party fundamental.

Part of the problem too is that Bill Clinton raised the race issue trying to split off some of the black vote in SC while simultaneously preparing Hillary for Super Tuesday. I think it may work because outside of SC, there are more white Democrats than black Democrats.

To win the nomination and win in November, Obama would have to do like Kennedy in 1960 or Laurier in 1896. Neither gave anyone reason to suspect for two seconds that they were running as a Catholic or as a French-Canadian. Both had big egos and they were running to win because they thought they were the best. Full stop.

Frankly, I suspect that Obama is as surprised as anyone by the success of his campaign. He's making this up as he goes along and he'll do much better in 2012 or 2016. Now, he's a household name. With the possible exception of Jimmy Carter in 1976, no one has become President in the past 60 years or so simply by showing up and giving a few speeches. It requires careful planning and organization. Kennedy laid the ground work for his 1960 campaign by running for VP in 1956.

A quote from a woman in Iceland hoping to be the next Prime Minister, "Iceland will not tolerate that some people are very rich and others are very poor' Iceland was the first country to have a women Prime Minister. Can you imagine the furor if this was the policy of an American wannbe president.

I note that Icelanders seem to apply that principle to their own community but not to the world community at large. I suggest you google "Iceland immigration". Edited January 29, 2008 by August1991

[gc1765]

Well, you should direct that question at North America's Left since it is the Democrats and NDP/Liberals who seem to seek gender/racial equality in their candidates. They are usually proponents of positive discrimination.

Meanwhile, on the Right, without further ado, a WASP PM gets votes in Quebec and the current US Secretary of State happens to be a black woman. If there's any lesson here, it's that a candidate should present themselves and get on with the job of campaigning. It would be wrong to ignore how people form first impressions but that's not something to run an entire campaign on.

Well, I was hoping we could have one interesting debate about politics without all the partisanship, but perhaps I was wrong.

Anyways, aside from the rest of your analysis, do you have an answer yet?

[gc1765]

On the contrary, Obama speaks about race indirectly when he speaks of "uniting" the United States. But I'll agree that Obama's problem is in part the problem of the Democratic Party over the past 30 years or so. They have made "identity politics" into a party fundamental.

The only time I have heard Obama talk about "uniting" is with respect to uniting Republicans and Democrats.

[August1991]

The only time I have heard Obama talk about "uniting" is with respect to uniting Republicans and Democrats.

As Prepared for Delivery:

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama:

The Great Need of the Hour

Ebenezer Baptist Church

Sunday, January 20th, 2008

Atlanta, Georgia

The Scripture tells us that when Joshua and the Israelites arrived at the gates of Jericho, they could not enter. The walls of the city were too steep for any one person to climb; too strong to be taken down with brute force. And so they sat for days, unable to pass on through.

But God had a plan for his people. He told them to stand together and march together around the city, and on the seventh day he told them that when they heard the sound of the ram's horn, they should speak with one voice. And at the chosen hour, when the horn sounded and a chorus of voices cried out together, the mighty walls of Jericho came tumbling down.

There are many lessons to take from this passage, just as there are many lessons to take from this day, just as there are many memories that fill the space of this church. As I was thinking about which ones we need to remember at this hour, my mind went back to the very beginning of the modern Civil Rights Era.

Because before Memphis and the mountaintop; before the bridge in Selma and the march on Washington; before Birmingham and the beatings; the fire hoses and the loss of those four little girls; before there was King the icon and his magnificent dream, there was King the young preacher and a people who found themselves suffering under the yoke of oppression.

And on the eve of the bus boycotts in Montgomery, at a time when many were still doubtful about the possibilities of change, a time when those in the black community mistrusted themselves, and at times mistrusted each other, King inspired with words not of anger, but of an urgency that still speaks to us today:

"Unity is the great need of the hour" is what King said. Unity is how we shall overcome.

...

Barack Obama's web site

I know they do things differently in the US than in Canada, and I realize that this was MLK Day but I just don't see Kennedy (or Trudeau) giving glib speeches like that.

Sen. Barack Obama took the pulpit of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s church here Sunday and drew a clear link between King's vision of an America free of segregation and racism and the central tenet of his own presidential campaign, a call for unity after years of partisan rancor and division.

Washington Post

Obama is as partisan as any politician and the essence of democracy is partisanship. We can choose an opposition party.

----

Getting back to the OP, North American Leftists use race and gender when it (seemingly) benefits them and then get offended when race and gender turn against them. How many people are voting for Hillary because they want to have a woman in the White House? How many are voting for Obama simply because they want to see a black man as president?

Now then - how many voters in the UK voted for Thatcher because they wanted a woman PM? How many Canadians will vote Liberal because they want a French-speaking, Catholic Quebecer as PM?

Political correctness is a double-edged sword and in Canada, we have managed better our racial/religious/linguistic/cultural faultline.

[gc1765]

Another example of what I am talking about:

The Toronto District School Board is preparing to vote on one of the most contentious issues it has faced in many years: black-focused schools.

Critics believe it is a plan for segregation, while supporters call it an attempt to keep more black students in school.

...

Some parents want to try something new because they say the current system isn't working. As many as 40 per cent of black students don't graduate from Toronto high schools.

Link

I can see the merit in having schools for students who are not doing well & have a high-risk for dropping out, and I understand that the drop-out rate is higher among blacks...but shouldn't these schools focus on which students are failing & likely to drop out rather than focusing on race. Is this just a form of segregation?

If you tell students "well, you're black so you're probably going to drop out of high school" isn't that actually going to encourage more people to drop out? Tell someone something long enough, and sooner or later they might start to believe it. It's almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy...