What Obama Actually Said:

[Guest American Woman]

Obama referred to African Americans as a sort of a mongrel people and then said it's true of white Americans, too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_fit0Wo2Ks&feature=player_embedded#!

Likely a poor choice of words, but the idea behind what he was saying is true.

Edited July 30, 2010 by American Woman

[Smallc]

OMG, what terrible evil words. WHAT AN EVIL MAN.

[Guest American Woman]

OMG, what terrible evil words. WHAT AN EVIL MAN.

Obviously very, very evil.

Thought I'd present it the way it actually was said in light of Shady's presentation of it in his status. What Shady said is true enough, but only part of what Obama said.

[Smallc]

I also like that there was a black woman (a very famous one) sitting there going mmmhmmm....obviously, she was very offended.

[August1991]

Likely a poor choice of words, but the idea behind what he was saying is true.

He said something similar when he said after his election, that he had promised a dog for his two kids. When asked what kind of dog, he answered: "Probably a mutt. Just like me."

-----

I have always been surprised by the difference in how Americans and Canadians approach the question of race. When the interviewer in that clip (Barbra Walters?) uses the term "biracial", I cringed and thought "How American!"

I think the problem is common in any society that has had segregation or apartheid since such systems necessarily must distinguish people. There must be a neat dividing line between different races. A person is on one side, or the other. You can't have a foot in both camps.

In Canada, the closest comparison would be language, or religion. It is obvious that someone can speak several languages so bilingual is not a strange idea. It is not possible to be simultaneously a Catholic and a Protestant, although it is possible to switch sides - and for love, many have.

In the US, particularly in the South, people had to be classified as "White" or "Colored".

The two countries approach race, or social divisions, very differently.

-----

I really liked Obama's quote in this clip about whites being mongrels too: "... but we just know more about it." I think it would be a good thing for Americans to understand better that there are no clear racial definitions.

Now then, with all of that said, I think Obama is wrong to equate racial mongrelism with cultural mongrelism. I have no problems living in a racially mixed world but I don't think we can or should do the same with culture. English and French are fine languages and they should not be mixed into a single language. Some cultural practices are simply uncivilized.

Edited July 30, 2010 by August1991

[Guest American Woman]

I have always been surprised by the difference in how Americans and Canadians approach the question of race. When the interviewer in that clip (Barbra Walters?) uses the term "biracial", I cringed and thought "How American!"

[...]

I really liked Obama's quote in this clip about whites being mongrels too: "... but we just know more about it." I think it would be a good thing for Americans to understand better that there are no clear racial definitions.

Americans? The U.S. isn't the country with "visible minorities."

You honestly think "visible minority" is more enlightened than "biracial?"

[bush_cheney2004]

Americans? The U.S. isn't the country with "visible minorities."

You honestly think "visible minority" is more enlightened than "biracial?"

Good point...I think "visible minority" is far less enlightened, because it implicitly instantiates the dominant "race" compared to all others, as if it will be true forever.

[August1991]

Americans? The U.S. isn't the country with "visible minorities."

You honestly think "visible minority" is more enlightened than "biracial?"

AW, this is not a zero-sum game or a debate in which one side is proven to be wrong.

Good point...I think "visible minority" is far less enlightened, because it implicitly instantiates the dominant "race" compared to all others, as if it will be true forever.

Canadians don't use the term "visible minority" in the same way that Americans refer to "race".

[Did I just defend the ugly bureaucratic term "visible minority"? Or, as I like to say, "I'm an invisible minority."]

----

AW and B_C, the mere fact that you have thrown this point back at me so quickly (rather than confront it) shows how sensitive the subject of "race" is in America.

Region, language and religion are faultlines in Canada. Race is a faultline in America.

-----

About 15 or so years ago, I was on a business trip, sitting alone in a bar/restaurant in Seattle at the end of a long and busy Friday. I had papers on the table because I had stuff to do before a flight on Saturday. Beside me, there was a table with a black guy and two whites - Americans in suits at the end of a working week.

At a certain point, I couldn't take the well-meaning ignorance of the white guys anymore (it was at the time of the Quebec referendum) and I foolishly got involved, accent and all, in the conversation.

I feel the same now in this thread.

[Shady]

Thought I'd present it the way it actually was said in light of Shady's presentation of it in his status. What Shady said is true enough, but only part of what Obama said.

My biggest issue with what he said is that I don't think he's right. I don't believe that Blacks are any more "mongrel" than any other race. And I don't believe they know more about it than any other race.

I just wish this guy would shut up about race for at least a little while. Nobody cares about who's mongrel and who isn't.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I just wish this guy would shut up about race for at least a little while. Nobody cares about who's mongrel and who isn't.

Hit a sensitive spot did he?

[Guest American Woman]

My biggest issue with what he said is that I don't think he's right. I don't believe that Blacks are any more "mongrel" than any other race.

And he said they weren't. Which makes him right. Did you even take the 1 minute and 33 seconds that it takes to listen to what he said?

And I don't believe they know more about it than any other race.

I believe they do. More has been made of it, so it stands to reason that they'd be more aware.

I just wish this guy would shut up about race for at least a little while.

Then direct your anger at Barbara Walters, since he was simply answering a question that was presented to him by her. I can just imagine your reaction if he had refused to acknowledge it.

Nobody cares about who's mongrel and who isn't.

Evidently you care greatly, since you've gone on and on about it yourself, and you started a thread about Obama not checking that he was white as well as black on his census form -- which is basically the issue that Walters was bringing up.

Contradict yourself much??

[BubberMiley]

My biggest issue with what he said is that I don't think he's right. I don't believe that Blacks are any more "mongrel" than any other race.

Once again, if you didn't just listen to the edited, out-of-context pieces from your right-wing blogs, you would know that's precisely what he said.

I just wish this guy would shut up about race for at least a little while.

I've said the same thing, but I was talking about you.

[Smallc]

I just wish this guy would shut up about race for at least a little while. Nobody cares about who's mongrel and who isn't.

They asked him!

[Shady]

How about using the term multi-racial instead of mongrel? What is this, the 1920's? Oh well, if anyone can get away with it, he can.

[Guest American Woman]

AW, this is not a zero-sum game or a debate in which one side is proven to be wrong.

Whoever said it was? I simply pointed out the absurdity of someone living in a country where "visible minority" is very much part of the language "cringing" and thinking "how American," when "visible minority," which is no more enlightening, is very Canadian.

Canadians don't use the term "visible minority" in the same way that Americans refer to "race".

Of course they do. How else are they referring to it, other than race? Hair color? Eye color? They are referring to race.

[Did I just defend the ugly bureaucratic term "visible minority"? Or, as I like to say, "I'm an invisible minority."]

Yep, which, as I said, is pretty absurd in light of your observation about Americans.

AW and B_C, the mere fact that you have thrown this point back at me so quickly (rather than confront it) shows how sensitive the subject of "race" is in America.

What exactly is it you think we should have confronted? I confronted the only thing that needed confronting regarding your comment.

Region, language and religion are faultlines in Canada. Race is a faultline in America.

No more than in Canada.

About 15 or so years ago, I was on a business trip, sitting alone in a bar/restaurant in Seattle at the end of a long and busy Friday. I had papers on the table because I had stuff to do before a flight on Saturday. Beside me, there was a table with a black guy and two whites - Americans in suits at the end of a working week.

At a certain point, I couldn't take the well-meaning ignorance of the white guys anymore (it was at the time of the Quebec referendum) and I foolishly got involved, accent and all, in the conversation.

I feel the same now in this thread.

No need for you to feel foolish. We're all entitled to our opinions, even when they're absurd.

[Smallc]

Religion is a fault line in Canada? Region and language though...definitely.

Edited July 30, 2010 by Smallc

[dre]

Region, language and religion are faultlines in Canada. Race is a faultline in America.

No more than in Canada.

Huh? Do you really believe that?

[Guest American Woman]

Huh? Do you really believe that?

Of course I do.

[Smallc]

Of course I do.

On what basis?

[Guest American Woman]

On what basis?

On the basis of your past history, along with the present and the future regarding your growing immigration/visible minorities. As more minorities become a significant part of your population, the more criticism/reference/problems I see regarding race. And I see these problems/criticisms/references growing as your visible minority population increases.

And the way I see it, the government not allowing statistics to be kept regarding race, speaks loudly, and it's not saying 'we don't pay attention to race.' To me it's a matter of "me thinks thou doth protest too much ..... "

[dre]

On the basis of your past history, along with the present and the future regarding your growing immigration/visible minorities. As more minorities become a significant part of your population, the more criticism/reference/problems I see regarding race. And I see these problems/criticisms/references growing as your visible minority population increases.

And the way I see it, the government not allowing statistics to be kept regarding race, speaks loudly, and it's not saying 'we don't pay attention to race.' To me it's a matter of "me thinks thou doth protest too much ..... "

I dont deny we have some friction here from time to time, but I dont think its comparable at all with the situation in the US where race is a prominent part of the political lexicon, and a constant source of political angst.

[Guest American Woman]

I dont deny we have some friction here from time to time, but I dont think its comparable at all with the situation in the US where race is a prominent part of the political lexicon, and a constant source of political angst.

Note that I said I'm basing it on your future, too, which I'm basing on your past and present. I find that race has been just as prominent regarding the percentage of minority population you've had as it has been with us. In other words, your history and present regarding First Nations people speaks for itself, and as your population consists of a larger percentage of minorities, your friction is rising accordingly.

It's just recently, really, that Canada has become multi-cultural, and friction has increased accordingly, along with problems including violence; and I see that friction rising, becoming more of a problem. In fact, I think it's going to be a force to be reckoned with before too long.

It's easy for race not to be a "prominent part of the political lexicon and a constant source of political angst" when the nation doesn't have much of a minority population. Quite frankly, for a country as large as the U.S. and as diverse as the U.S., I think we've ultimately done quite well over all.

And we don't "hide" our statistics regarding race; pretend they don't exist. That certainly makes it all appear to be more "prominent" too. Bottom line, I think we're just more upfront about it, not afraid to discuss it and bring it out in the open, which, as I said, makes it more prominent. Doesn't mean the reality of the situation isn't the same in a country that's more quiet about it, though. In fact, I think bringing it out in the open, making it part of the political lexicon, is a good thing; it's how people are made aware of problems/issues, which is the first step to dealing with, and solving, problems.

[Smallc]

I don't know if you realize this, but the friction you see on this board really isn't present in the Canadian public. There aren't very many news stories in Canada where race is really a big issue. It's really a non issue here.

[Guest American Woman]

I don't know if you realize this, but the friction you see on this board really isn't present in the Canadian public. There aren't very many news stories in Canada where race is really a big issue. It's really a non issue here.

Not so much a "non-issue" as a 'not to be mentioned in the media' issue. It's the elephant in the room, and I see acknowledging the elephant as more productive and better all around. I do think Canada will eventually have to acknowledge the elephant, too.

[Smallc]

Not so much a "non-issue" as a 'not to be mentioned in the media' issue. It's the elephant in the room, and I see acknowledging the elephant as more productive and better all around. I do think Canada will eventually have to acknowledge the elephant, too.

I really don't know where the elephant is. Truly, race is almost never an issue that I encounter in life.