InvisibleBlack
Posts: 865
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Arpig
Face it, America is a racist country...race is an important issue there for some reason. Just about every American survey we do asks for the respondant's race, while Canadian surveys almost never do (we almost always ask them for their income...figure that). I mean surveys about grocery shopping, health care, car insurance...you name it, there is always that race question.
American statisticians care what race people are because Americans care...ergo racism (by which I mean a fixation on race) is part of what it is to be American.
Personally I don't understand it, I have no idea why it matters to people, but it does.
That's a tough deal to get to the bottom of because in many circumstances the government requires you to report on race or the racial breakdown of your employees/members/etc. so that whether or not an individual, organization or group actually "cares" about race - they're required to track it.
I'm not saying you're wrong about race mattering to most people, you may well be right, but I'm not sure that you can use the information that American statisticians track as a basis for it since a lot of those statistics might not be collected if left to the individual's choice.
And now on to the OP...
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aneirin
I am just wondering here why it is people just seem to have it in for Barak Obama and I just have to ask, does the fact that he is black have anything to do with it?
I would have to say that in my opinion, of course it has something to do with it - but also not as much as you think.
What do I mean?
I do not believe that a majority (or even a significant minority) of Americans are what I would call "actively racist" - by which I mean actively hate/dislike a person or people based on their skintone. Barack Obama handily won the last election and were 20+ percent of Americans actively racist I do not believe that is possible.
A friend of mine whose research is in the area of social theory has what he calls the "6% rule" - which is that no matter how bizarre, outlandish or insane a theory is - there's usually about 6% of the population that will believe it. I would argue that the white sheet crowd, the Aryan Nation types, and the other racist hate groups fall into this category.
I do believe that a majority of Americans are what I will call "passively racist" in that they have a preconceived set of notions and ideas as what constitutes the "average" member of a group and apply these ideas to certain groups based on skintone. This is not unique to how members of the black community are viewed, as there are similar stereotypes for Asians, Arabs, etc. - and this is not unique to America as probably most of the world does, in fact, form some judgements about a complete stranger based on the color of their skin - despite whatever rhetoric they care to spout to the contrary.
No matter what anyone wants to admit - appearance counts for a lot in social situations and elections are social situations. "Looking presidential" does count, and I would posit that to most people the archtypical President is a tall white male in his late 50s with a full head of hair. If you don't look like that, you're automatically at a disadvantage - whether you're black, female or a short funny-looking white guy - how much of a disadvantage depends on how far from the archetype you are and just what each voter's idiosyncracies are in regards to what he or she considers a "President".
So yes, of course, the fact that Barack Obama is black affected things. Some people no doubt voted for him because he was black. Some people voted against him because he was black. Some people were inclined to vote against him and the fact that he was black was an additional negative to them. Some people were inclined to vote for him and the fact that he was black was an extra positive. In my admittedly unscientific opinion and based solely on my observations during the elction - I would say that his being black was a bigger positive factor in the election than it was a negative - but I could be completely wrong about that.
However, in regards to the opposition to his Administration and the vitriol being leveled at him - if he was white would it have changed? I don't believe the magnitude would be any less. If John Edwards or Hillary Clinton had been elected instead, I believe there would still be TEA parties and nasty slogans and the same level of anger and vitriol - just the tone of the rhetoric would be different - based on the specifics of the individual in the Office. American politics is highly polarized and there's a lot of anger out there - moreso than most people want to admit. It's somewhat diffuse and unfocused so it comes out in weird ways - but a different President would have that same anger aimed at him or her.
Had Colin Powell run on the Republican ticket, won the election and ended the war in Iraq in six months, had obvious success in Afghanistan and balanced the budget his first year in office I suspect that he would be regarded as a genius and a hero by the TEA party crowd - his race not being a factor at all.
I don't think the core of the anger revolves around race. I think the core of the anger revolves around the feeling of being disenfranchized, of having the people running the government, the "ruling class", the elite or however you want to put it - not only having little common ground with you but truly and totally not caring at all about you in any way - not even as a statistic. I think that for large segments of what constitutes the TEA Party and similar groups this is an entirely new feeling and they don't like it- and so they're reacting to it the same way that other groups have reacted in the past.
Over this core resentment - which would apply to pretty much any Presidental candidate as they're all more or less cut from the same cloth - I think there is an overlay of racial anger. To them Barack Obama is not just a black man - he's a privileged elite black man. His graduating from Harvard and his meteoric rise through the political field (which, let's be honest, happened very quickly compared with most other Presidential hopefuls) fuels both the "got special treatment because of his race" anger and the "one of those rich elitist types" anger which would apply to George Bush or an Al Gore or the bulk of our political class. The fact that the media fawned all over Barack Obama for a couple of years only adds to the "special treatment" resentment.
Damn, I wrote an essay again.
To sum up - I think that race is always a factor but that no matter the details of the President the same level of anger and resentment would be visible. Barack Obama's being black only provided a different way for this anger to be expressed.
< Message edited by InvisibleBlack -- 5/5/2010 1:55:09 PM >
_____________________________
Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.
|
RE: Is it because he's black ? - 
Profile
RE: Is it because he's black ? - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread