Black Bloggers Debate Obama's Victory

Cross-posted at the Francis L. Holland Blog.

What does the election of President Barack Obama mean to Black bloggers? Rickyrah of Jack and Jill Politics expressed it today through "The Imagery of Tuesday", because sometimes words are not enough to capture what we feel and what we feel has happened.

Would White people ACTUALLY vote for a Black man for President?
I said I didn't know the answer to the question, but I just wanted to know the answer. That this country was facing a moment of truth about itself. It was fast approaching the instance where the mythology of America was going to meet reality, and it was going to have to decide.
And, it did. Jack and Jill Politics

African American Political Pundit surveyed over half a dozen afrosphere bloggers, quoting their most salient points.

There's more...

The Lynch Mob Actions of John McCain, and his sidekick Sarah Palin

Enough is enough John McCain and Sarah Palin!

I agree with John Lewis who said, "As one who was a victim of violence and hate during the height of the Civil Rights Movement, I am deeply disturbed by the negative tone of the McCain-Palin campaign.  What I am seeing reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history.  Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse."

AAPP: OK folks you remember when McCain was asked at the Saddleback Church Forum which three "wise" people he'd consult with upon becoming president, McCain, listed among others civil rights hero Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., "who can teach us all a lot about the meanings of courage and commitment to causes greater than ourself."

Let's not get it twisted folks, Mark Karlin's Editor's Blog over at says it best, It's a John McCain/Sarah Palin Lynch Mob politics.

As Mark writes, "There was the raw smell of scary stupid ignorance in the air, and even Jon Stewart could barely conceal his disgust with what was supposed to be a comic sketch.

Palin has been going around the nation inciting mobs with the kind of emotional appeals (although in a more coded form) that one used to find at segregationist rallies. A video of some rabidly ignorant crowd at a Palin speech in Ohio has gone viral on the Internet, and it's a brief and scary insight into the reality that the ugly, bigoted heart of America's dark underside is still beating strong - and has just gotten a second life with the incendiary direction of the McCain campaign.

Given that the mainstream media has still not picked up on the video of Sarah Palin welcoming, this year in 2008, the Alaskan Independence Party to their yearly meeting -- which we have posted on BuzzFlash several times -- it is hard to understand how the irony of a governor who has clearly documented close ties to a group that regards the United States as an "occupying force" gets away with the ugly farce of basically calling Obama a terrorist. (Yes, it's in coded language, but that is what Palin and McCain are doing, inciting the fears of the "dark other," the man with the middle name of "Hussein.") One of the bigots at the Palin Ohio rally said that terrorism was in Obama's "bloodline." This is the kind of talk that brought Hitler to power.

In 2008, the McCain campaign has decided to use the Salem Witch Trials as its model for running for the highest office in our great land."

Meanwhile, The head of the nation's biggest labor federation is joining the chorus of voices warning about the increasingly angry crowds coming to John McCain's campaign events. This as reported by the Boston Globe.

At rallies this week, McCain's criticisms of Democrat Barack Obama have been met with shouts of "terrorist,""liar," and other harsh words.

"Sen. John McCain, Gov. Sarah Palin and the leadership of the Republican party have a fundamental moral responsibility to denounce the violent rhetoric that has pervaded recent McCain and Palin political rallies," said John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO, which has endorsed Obama. "When rally attendees shout out such attacks as 'terrorist' or 'kill him' about Sen. Barack Obama, when they are cheered on by crowds incited by McCain-Palin rhetoric -- it is chilling that McCain and Palin do nothing to object.

AAPP: Lets not forget how this all started. People throughout America have been tracking it on Youtube. It all started when McCain and Palin has almost incited a color and ideological war.

There's more...

Is Joe Biden a "Racist"?

I heard someone say with respect to Senator Joe Biden,  

The mere fact that people discuss "race" is not evidence that they are "racists". 

This topic of "race" is very convoluted , since we all agree that, as a biological matter, "race" doesn't exist in the first place. It's very difficult to have a meaningful discussion about something that we all agree does not exist. It's like asking, "How abominable is the abominable snow man?" If the abominable snow man does not exist, will we ever be able to reach general agreement about whether he is abominable or not? Since "race" does not exist, how can we know if any given person is a "racist"?  

I think anyone who uses the word "race", regardless of the skin color of the person who does so, is a proponent of or an enabler of the idea that humans can be divided neatly up into meaningful biological groups based on the color of our skin. Among the most "racist" people alive are those who keep "racism" alive by ostensibly fighting against "racism" while continuing to use linguistic terms that presume the disproved existence of "race" itself.  

"Race" does not exist. It is the most debated biological concept that has no basis in biology. Why not divide us by height or eye color, hair color or distance between our eyes? Fact is, biological "race" is a fallacious and arbitrary concept that has no meaning except in the proponents' minds, and I call those proponents "racists", regardless of what their color is. In my opinion, if you believe in socialism you are a "socialist"; If you believe in "race", you are a "racist."  

Now, some Black people and whites readily admit that "race" doesn't exist as a biological matter, but they nonetheless insist on using the word to refer to a political concept, insisting that Americans are intelligent enough to know the difference, and to make the distinction in the context of any given conversation. Since when have Americans been so intelligent?  

This to me, is like insisting that I can call my wife "my bitch" in a positive way, and everyone will be intelligent enough to know that I am using the word in a loving rather than derogatory way. And therefore, because I use the phrase "my bitch" in a positive way, I can know with certainty that I will not give license, political and linguistic cover to those who regularly use the term in a negative way.  

The truth is that if I called my wife "my bitch" for any reason, I would be giving cover to those who use the word in a derogatory fashion for the purposes of denigrating all women, particularly Black women. And so, like the word "race", I can't afford to use the term "my bitch" at all, for any reason. The social, political and linguistic costs are just too high.  

Similarly, if I use the word "race" for ANY REASON, I give cover to those who use the word to propagate the belief that human beings can be divided into meaningful biological groups based on skin color. So, if you hate hearing the phrase "my bitch", then you should also consider abandoning the phrase "my race," regardless of what your own skin color is.  

Now, when Biden makes statements that are clearly referencing people's skin color and/or ethnicity, there can be no doubt but that those statements are aroused by his perception of others skin color and /or ethnicity, as well as his learned ideation, emotion and behavior aroused by the perception of others' skin color or ethnicity.  Therefore, Mr. Biden has demonstrated that he has ideation, emotion and verbal behavior that is aroused by skin color and ethnicity.  He also has a nearly perfect voting record on civil rights issues.

There's more...

Will Whites Hand This Election to John McCain?

My take on the Democratic Primaries on April 22, 2007, eight months before the Primary season began.

With a Black Democrat running for the White House against a white Republican for the presidency, no one can say that analysis about how and why Americans will vote as they do is irrelevant or off point.  Studies show that white people don't generally agree with Black people about the nature of the color-based subtext to such a confrontation, and MyDD is 98% white, so it is virtually impossible that very many people will agree with what I am about to propose.  After the election, if they are honest, they will be forced to admit that the analysis I present here is central to the outcome, whatever it is.

Some people wonder why I've attacked people like John Edwards and Elizabeth Edwards, (as well as Al Gore and Hillary Clinton more recently) so vigorously over my blogging career.  The criticism change based on their behavior at different moments and strategic concerns, but there is one unifying theme:  A fight against the systemic denigration, subjugation, oppression and exploitation of Black people in the United States, involving both "whitism", for short, and the white male superiority syndrome.

As I wrote back on December 13, 2006:

Here, I define white male supremacy as:

The belief that white males, no matter how much and how often they fail, are still, by virtue of their male gender and white skin, are inherently more qualified than blacks and women who succeed.  

The corollary to that definition is that white male supremacy is also:

The belief that Blacks and women, no matter how much or how often they succeed, are inherently inferior to white men, no matter how much or how often white men fail.
To show how the White Male Supremacy paradigm functions in practice, we compare the educational qualifications of all of the candidates for President, with a particular focus on those of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Senator Barack Obama and ex-Vice President Albert Gore.  Crashing the White Male Supremacy Paradigm

At the time, very few people agreed to me that the central issue in the 2008 race would be the relative continued prevalence of the white white male supremacy paradigm, and so they banned me from participating in DailyKos because they believed that my attacks on the white male supremacy paradigm were unwarranted. And yet, I continued to write that John Edwards' candidacy would not be successful because, among other reasons, Americans (Democrats at least) were no longer willing to accept the proposition that a white man as president was inherently superior to a woman or a Black man.

Traditionally, when Americans became sick and tired of the leadership that one political party offered, they see-sawed from the Democrats to the Republicans and back again, in the hopes that things would change. However, after 43-consecutive white male presidencies and no movement toward national health care, many Americans have abandoned the traditional belief that white male leadership was inevitable or inherently better. In fact, both the polling numbers and the campaign contribution numbers point to a new dynamic: Many Americans have concluded that as long as America is led at the highest levels exclusively by the white male minority of the population, the country will never change for the better. Anger and Disgust at White Male Leadership Fuel Contributions and Polling of Clinton, Obama

And once having stripped back John Edwards' white maleness and considering him on other basis, he would prove not to be as effective a candidate as the woman and Black man against whom he was running. I particularly said that his central premise, that electing the 44th white man to the presidency would help Blacks and women (the poor), was illogical and simply untrue, and I was credited in the The American Prospect for having identified early one of the principal reasons why John Edwards' campaign never caught on with the Democratic electorate.

Now, with Barack Obama and John McCain contesting the presidency, we have for the first time in American history an alternative other than see-sawing back and forth between the white male candidate of one party and the white male candidate of the other party. Now, we Democrats have the phenomenal Barack Obama as our standard-bearer. It is apparent, however, that the only way that the Democrats can possibly win the presidency in 2008 is if the white male supremacy paradigm does not take hold of more than 49% of the American voters.

The Democrats as a Party and the Obama campaign in particular will have to find a way to point out that 43 consecutive white male presidencies have not resolved all or most of the problems that we face, and have often exacerbated problems that could easily have been fixed with better leadership; It's not that Black or female (or Latino) leadership would inherently have been better, per se, simply as a "change of pace", but rather that - as we see in this election - if we choose the white man just because he is white, we will also be choosing to maintain many of the Bush operatives who have abbrogated much of our Constitution, started an interminable a war of plunder in Iraq, and caused the value of the US Dollar to drop by one half against international currencies, as a measure of the perceived economic strength of our economy and our country.

There's more...

Bloggers Adopting Anti-Taser Campaign

See Author's Credibility Rating (ACR) in the endnotes.


Please place the widget at your blog now.

There's more...


Advertise Blogads