New Yorker's Controversial Obama Cover (threads merged)

Parent Cafe
261

<p>I don’t know what Webster says, but I’m not sure I agree with the assertion that “racism” means just that one favors one race over another, or that one thinks that one race is superior to another. I think racism can take many forms, and one form is to make generalizations or assumptions about someone just because they are of a certain race.</p>

<p>If you agree w/ that, then we might also agree that Obama was accusing his grandmother of racism b/c he said she made certain assumptions about people just b/c they were of a certain race (causing her to be afraid of black men she sees on the street).</p>

<p>I also think that people accuse others of racism when they see them as attacking a “race” or “group” of people such as Obama has done in his response to the NYer cover. He wants us to believe that the cover is an insult to ALL Muslins, just as he (or his supporters) would like us to believe that criticisms of him are attacks against ALL African Americans.</p>

<p>If Person A accuses Person B of racism, does that imply that Person A is also racist in that “it takes one to know one”? Just wonderin’…</p>

<p>Certainly accusations of racism occur where none was intended.</p>

262

<p>More definitions of racism than you can shake a stick at:</p>

<p>[define:Racism</a> - Google Search](<a href=“define:Racism - Google Search”>define:Racism - Google Search)</p>

263

<p>“If you agree w/ that, then we might also agree that Obama was accusing his grandmother of racism b/c he said she made certain assumptions about people just b/c they were of a certain race (causing her to be afraid of black men she sees on the street).”</p>

<p>I thought it was pretty simple. Obama was saying that his grandmother, like most white people, continued to harbor some racist thoughts. Nevertheless, he could never disown her because of this. This is so obviously true that I couldn’t understand the uproar about it. It was patently absurd to claim that he threw her under the bus by saying this.</p>

264

<p>It’s human nature to be distrusting of those who are different. If I’m walking down the street and I see a black guy walking my way in a suit or nicely dressed I don’t think twice…the same if it is a white guy. If I see a black guy dressed like a thug or a banger that’s different…the same as if I see a white guy walking down the street that looks less than savory. It’s not the color…</p>

265

<p>pmrlcomm, you are about 10 years younger than I am, I think. I hope what you say is true, but I don’t think it’s true of the majority of white people of my vintage, at least if they are being completely honest. Obama is closer to my age, and obviously his grandmother is from another generation entirely.</p>

266

<p>“Say Whaaaaa??? That interpretation of the “typical white woman” statement is rather… far fetched, to say the least. Is there some documentation from BO that this was in fact what he meant by his statement?”</p>

<p>[Breitbart.tv</a> Obama: Grandmother a ‘Typical White Person’ Who Fears People She Doesn’t Know](<a href=“http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=65704]Breitbart.tv”>http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=65704)</p>

267

<p>^^^ I quoted BO’s comments ver batim in post #257. He clearly did not say that his grandmothers comments were reflective of the thinking of the subsequent, and current more enlightened generation. Saying " she will be faced with an internal struggle that is influenced by our racist past and present experience" implies that things haven’t changed in 2 generations, which is isn’t true, and isn’t what BO said.</p>

268

<p>pmrlcomm:
I totally agree!!

Well said. (and I am at least Hunt’s age, if not older)</p>

269

<p>“I have never seen the Obamas freak out over anything. Many of their supporters certainly do. Spend some time reading left wing blogs, or even some of the political debates on here. It is clear to me that the vitriol and hyperbole from the left is more intense by a landslide.”</p>

<p>Nonsense. I suspect you are simply so biased toward your point-of-view you are unable to perceive the pure stupidity that comes from the right. Listen to right-wing radio, Michelle Malkin, and Ann Coutler (who I in fact enjoy) and do it with a reasonable mind, and you will not be able to declare the nonsense you’ve declared here. Both sides have dingbats. I think the right has many, many more of them, but I certainly understand that they exist in good measure all around.</p>

<p>“Uproar” depends on subjective usage and context. That being said, it is false that the left freaks out only when Obama’s identity is attacked. For example, Obama’s choice of Wright as his mentor and spiritual advisor was analyzed and criticized because of the Reverend’s political beliefs, and how Obama’s association with him might be a predictor of future presidential decision-making."</p>

<p>I reject that the left ever freaked out over the right’s response to the Wright issue. So you are unable to use this as an example of your point. The right was saying that since Obama’s pastor was a racist, Obama himself accepted racism ‘for over 20 years’. Of course the claim was utter nonsense for a variety of possible reasons, two of which are 1. Wright was never actually shown to be a racist, and 2. If he was a racist, he very well may not have been an obvious one for the entire 20 years of Obama’s tenure in the church. People can and often do change. Even so, when the right exploited Wright to harm Obama’s campaign, there was nothing that I would consider an “uproar”. Obama’s supporters simply counterpunched as any political group is want to do. I think you are just being unreasonable here. His supporters actually should punch against the claims. They would not have been supporters if they had not.</p>

<p>“It had nothing to do with Obama’s religion or his identity.”</p>

<p>And therefore there was no uproar about it. You may therefore take this off of your plate. It is not the red meat it appears to be.</p>

<p>“The current New Yorker cover issue is a perfect example of a ridiculous outcry in response to something that was not in any way an attack on Obama’s identity. The magazine was trying to help him.”</p>

<p>I think you fail to understand what happened here, and I think you should try to rise beyond your biases so that you can see it. I agree that the New Yorker cover was not being malicious. I think people are confused here because the image of the Obamas boldly displayed all the malicious attacks that others hurled against Obama’s identity, religious (turban), and racial (afro). As a result, they recoiled against it. Many others perhaps feared that, though the cover poked fun at Obama’s attackers, people are not philosophical enough to understand the satire (and this is true). Since many Americans already insist on believing these false ideas about Obama’s identity, the image could simply reinforce the falsity. I think the fear is reasonable, though I thought the cover a good one.</p>

<p>“[regarding Hillary’s release of a photo of Obama in African garb,] Obama’s background and identity as the child of an African father and who has extended family there is a relevant matter. For example, Obama will be the first US President with such a distinction. This is a most attractive characteristic to many people. It simply has to play a role in his world perspective, and it could have a positive effect on the future role of this nation in the world community.”</p>

<p>Ah, and so this explains why Obama’s arch-enemy at the time released the image. She was trying to help Obama, and create a “positive effect on the future role of this nation” and all that sort of pure numbskullian hogwash. In truth, people “freaked” about the photo because Hillary’s attack on Obama’s identity was transparent and beneath contempt. The “uproar” here was quite understandable to any fair-minded person. </p>

<p>“If his parents were Greek immigrants, people would be talking about the culture in his household and how that might have shaped him.”</p>

<p>I submit to you that portraying the guy as a monkey fails to talk about the culture in his household, though undoubtedly many Americans wish to believe it does. When genuine uproars do occur, they occur over issues like this. I think your claim is unreasonable. The man is running a campaign. It is reasonable that his supporters will vigorously defend him against this nonsense.</p>

<p>“I have seen Bush lampooned as a ‘WASP” with a silver spoon in his mouth, and some have wondered if his background, the sum of his experiences, contributed to his being out of touch with this changing nation. I never saw an outcry about that…”</p>

<p>Because it is not quite the same as his being black and being called a monkey. But hey, if you think it unreasonable that Obama’s supporters should decry nonsense, fine. I reject your view, and the sun will rise tomorrow. I think our conversation here is pretty ridiculous.</p>

<p>“As for condemning someone for their race or religion, caricatures and lampoons have historically been edgy (but that does not mean that race, religion, ethnicity, or any other sensitive identifying factor is being condemned). Good ones force us to see important and relevant truths, painful as they may be.”</p>

<p>Like the important and relevant truths we see in Obama’s being called a monkey? Please. There is no defense here of such nonsense.</p>

<p>“I think if you reread by original post in this exchange, you’ll detect a lot of sarcasm.”</p>

<p>I also detect a whole lot of irrationality.</p>

<p>“I am not the first to venture down this path. If you will look into Saturday Night Live comedy skits over the past year, you will see that you are incorrect. The notion of the left, and the press, being so eager to protect Obama and so uncritical of him reached comedic proportions. It is in the public consciousness so much that it hit the entertainment community. Art imitates life.”</p>

<p>This is completely irrelevant to your point, since there was nothing in the skit about any leftist “uproar”. The skit rather poked fun of the alleged kid gloves being used by the press toward Obama, compared to Hillary. You need to stay on point, young lady.</p>

<p>“Your post brought up Fox News and criticized it – that was irrelevant to the discussion. I defended the organization in response.”</p>

<p>Since the terrorist fist-jab comment was a Fox comment, I referred to Fox. You countered by claiming Fox has liberals on its shows, a counter that fell flat on its face since it is completely irrelevant to your point – or any point here at all.</p>

<p>“Well, if you look at Fox’s vastly successful numbers (and I think we can assume that viewers are watching because they like it), you are calling a whole lot of people out there ‘insane’.”</p>

<p>It would not be the first time that a vast number of people acted like complete dimwits. America voted for George Bush, for example – TWICE. That is pure insanity there for ya.</p>

<p>“I think it is na</p>

270

<p>“^^^ I quoted BO’s comments ver batim in post #257. He clearly did not say that his grandmothers comments were reflective of the thinking of the subsequent, and current more enlightened generation. Saying " she will be faced with an internal struggle that is influenced by our racist past and present experience" implies that things haven’t changed in 2 generations, which is isn’t true, and isn’t what BO said.”</p>

<p>Obama was clear about what he meant when he referred to his grandma’s words. When he said “that there’s a reaction that’s been bred into our experiences that don’t go away that sometimes come out in the wrong way…" and that “that’s just the nature of race in our society.”, he was clearly stating his understanding of the internal struggle of a typical white person in America might endure upon meeting a black guy she does not know. He was not slamming whites, but only stating what we all already know, that race is affecting us in exactly this way, and that it is no reason to disown someone.</p>

<p>If you wish to believe something else, go right ahead. But I heard the guy’s comment and am not so dumb that I could not understand it.</p>

271

<p>My point, which continues to be dodged, ignored, or disbelieved, is that there was a distinction made between what his grandma’s generation may have been inclined to think or did in her day vs. what the CURRENT generation thinks and does. To to say “… faced with an internal struggle that is influenced by our racist PAST AND PRESENT EXPERIENCE” suggests the belief that there has not been progress, that there is no difference, that there has not been a change in our country in 2 generations. That’s silly. And we are supposed to accept one person’s biased, word-smithed opinion about/interpretation of what Obama “meant”? LOL. Rather than paraphrase his words and surmize or convince cc readers of what he may have meant, it might be helpful to listen to his words, which were " …And what makes me opitimistic is that you see each generation being a little bit less like that". He sees change, and seems to be able to look forward, not back.</p>

272

<p>How could anyone possibly think that Obama’s a granny-hating, anti-American racist? Or that McCain is a senile, wife-cheating war-mongerer? Or that either one of them is evil? We seem so eager to interpret everything about them in some sinister way, twisting things around until they look like two of the worst people who ever walked the earth. We scrutinize every association they ever had, every word they ever uttered, every thing they ever did–and always in an extremely negative way. Why is that? (I do it too.) … Why can’t we just say, “Gee, I disagree with Obama on abortion?” Or, “I don’t think McCain’s right on Iraq?” Or “I feel that Obama is too inexperienced?” Or, “I think McCain may be too old for the job?” For some reason, we prefer to demonize them. One of these guys is going to be our next president, and I, for one, am trying hard to talk myself down from the cliff of panic I’ve put myself on.</p>

273

<p>“To to say “… faced with an internal struggle that is influenced by our racist PAST AND PRESENT EXPERIENCE” suggests the belief that there has not been progress, that there is no difference, that there has not been a change in our country in 2 generations”</p>

<p>False. It is not to say there has been “NO” progress, that there is “NO” difference, that there has been “NO” change. When Obama said “We have to break through it. And what makes me opitimistic is that you see each generation being a little bit less like that ", he stated quite clearly that we simply have not come far enough, that the progress has not been enough to eliminate these reactions. It is right before your eyes that he believes there has been progress, but not enough - that there has been change, but not enough. He is optimistic, however, because “you see each generation being a little bit less like that”.</p>

<p>You speak nonsense, sir. The facts are right before you, and yet you cannot see them. Whasswrongwicha?</p>

274

<p>Hindoo’s words deserve a ditto:

</p>

<p>All I can say is, Hindoo For Veep!</p>

275

<p>If you look at the post you quoted, you’ll see that the wording is a little different than what you quoted. The point, for the umpteenth time, is that change has been made. This ain’t his grandma’s US.

Hurling insults at yourself? LOL</p>

276

<p>Hindoo:

Maybe it is a matter of perception, but I really do see it that way. That you see it another way gives me pause for thought, as I think you are unusually fair-minded. </p>

<p>Is is possible that as far as radio waves and TV go, we get vitriol from both sides? Yet face to face or in forums, the left could be populated with people who tend to get nastier when pressed? Maybe that isn’t likely either. How about that the left (as a whole - not everyone of course) whines way more and cries much louder when a foul is perceived? That might describe my impression best.</p>

277

<p>Spideygirl,
Should Hindoo be Obama or McCain’s VP? With McCain’s advancing age, do you think he’d have a better chance of taking over the first chair spot? </p>

<p>And I totally agree with his (Hindoo’s) comments. Political campaigns seem to get uglier and uglier. Then, if you try to pick someone who is squeaky clean, they are assumed to be a dweeb.</p>

278

<p>Let me say this about that: “I shall not seek, nor will I accept, the nomination as vice president of the United States.”</p>

279

<p>I need to ask someone to clean out their maibox so it can receive messages.</p>

280

<p>Hindoo: Oh sure, that’s what they all say. Just wait until Hindoo is asked. I bet he or she will accept. How can you say no to that, really?</p>