Log In | Register
RACISM explains a lot of white opposition to Barack Obama, say some Democrats. It would be foolish to dismiss this argument out of hand. Lexington walked into a shop in Millington, Tennessee last week and asked the white gentleman behind the counter what he thought of the 44th president. "He's a @!$%#ing @!$%#," came the reply. The shopkeeper then helpfully explained that he was "not bashful" about expressing his opinions.
Angry white men: Will piqued pale males hand the Republicans a victory in November?
Seeded on Fri Apr 16, 2010 7:47 AM EDT
Article Source: The Economist- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (28)
Cultural issues add to Democrats’ woes with whites. Mr Obama’s first pick for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, is best known for backing a plan to deny promotion to white firefighters because of their race. (That is not how she phrased it, but it is what happened.) On another occasion, the president accused the police of acting “stupidly” when they briefly arrested a friend of his, a black Harvard professor who was locked out of, and broke into, his own house. Many blacks sympathised with the professor because they, too, have been presumed criminal. But many whites sympathised with the cops because they, too, have been presumed racist, says David Paul Kuhn, author of “The Neglected Voter”, a fine book about white men and politics. Both episodes reinforced the stereotype that the Democratic Party favours everyone except white males.
In my opinion these angry white males are actually afraid they're going to have to remove their feet from the necks of all those they've kept oppressed! Be damned that others will enjoy the benefits they've enjoyed for so long. They're right to fear losing the power to keep others oppressed and having to share the power. Their days of feeling and acting like kings, in their own minds, are coming to an end.
- 3 votes
#1 - Fri Apr 16, 2010 7:52 AM EDTAnd once again someone who fails to understand the seriousness of the backlash by misunderstanding the motivations.
- 3 votes
PIK - You sound Anti-White and very racist in your remarks. Why is that ok? If it is not ok to criticize a person of another color because of his color, then it is not ok to critize a white person because of the white skin. Enough already. Just sayin' - "Justice for all". ViVi - ^ ^
- 3 votes
Why am I not surprised that my comment sounds anti-white and very racist to you Vintage Viner? Does the truth hurt? What you might want to do is to ignore the material taught you from the history books issued at school and go to your local Borders and research history by legitimate authors where pertinent information was not omitted for brainwashing purposes.
- 1 vote
The reality of actuarial tables and demographics of increasingly uneducated white males, in terms of their overall Weltanschuuang, suggests that their influence as voters is coming to a natural end.
Whether they like it or not, for their own survival, white males will have to rapidly adapt to radically new world within the next 30 years, assuming they want to remain viable in any capacity.
- 5 votes
Whether they like it or not, for their own survival, white males will have to rapidly adapt to radically new world within the next 30 years, assuming they want to remain viable in any capacity.
I was just one person, no more no less, 20 years ago, 10 years ago, and today. In 10 years I'll be the same, 20 years, and 30 years......Just like everybody else. White males are no more or less 'viable' than black females, asian males, etc.
- 2 votes
Article:
White voters have changed their view of Mr Obama not because of his skin colour, but because of what he has done—and what he has failed to do
This is true - though I doubt the "fail to do" part is. Obama's numbers went down after health care passed. People aren't ready to be babysat entirely by government.
Interestingly, this passage somewhat negates the "racial" tone of the article. Where were all the racists when Obama was elected?
PowerisKnowledge:
losing the power to keep others oppressed
It's not about oppressing others, it's about fear of Government oppression. Obama and the left must convince the taxpayer that Big Government, and more Government Power, is good for them.
It will be a tough sell.
- 5 votes
#2 - Fri Apr 16, 2010 8:42 AM EDTRickeroo: I agree--Mr. Obama wasn't voted into office by just the minority voters. That's a mystique everyone on the left needs to leave behind.
It's not about oppressing others, it's about fear of Government oppression. Obama and the left must convince the taxpayer that Big Government, and more Government Power, is good for them.
It will be a tough sell.
That, Rickeroo, is the understatement of the year. So far, myself, as an independent voter who has voted for dems/reps and independents in the past, I have yet to see how bigger and more intrusive government is good for anyone.
- 8 votes
Lkessler, thanks for the affirmation.
What America is experiencing is a rise in libertarian ideology - this is a foreign concept to both parties, but especially the democrats. McCain would have also grown government, but not to the degree that Obama has.
In a way, Obama is good for the country. People have awakened.
- 5 votes
Interestingly, this passage somewhat negates the "racial" tone of the article. Where were all the racists when Obama was elected?
lets see Obama was elected by young whites who overwhelming voted for Obama from the age of 18-29
If whites had voted only Obama would have lost by a landside
and also the people who least voted for Obama where white males 45+ the older the less they voted for him which makes up most of the tea party
and the power base in this country those who make policy own the business etc... are white males over the age of 45 who overwhelmingly voted against Obama
so race has a lot to do with it from the angry mostly older white males who wield the power in this country but were out voted by the young whites and minorities
- 1 vote
If whites had voted only Obama would have lost by a landside
Misleading, as if to say that most whites vote democrat unless he's black. I will use a socialist column for my retort:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-wiener/white-voters-and-obama_b_140839.html
The key paragraph is here:
On the other hand: Obama has more support from white voters than any Democratic candidate in the last 30 years. According to another New York Times-CBS poll, 44 per cent of whites support Obama. If he ends up tonight with that 44 per cent, that will be more than supported Kerry, who got 41 per cent; more than Gore, who got 43 per cent; and more than Clinton in 1996, who also got 43 percent.
When a black sits in the White House, cries of racism fall a bit flat.
- 3 votes
Misleading
nothing misleading about it.. The numbers are already in just stating a fact... if just whites had voted in this past election Obama would have lost by a landslide
white males 45+ overwhelming did not vote for Obama and they run the news media the business and make the policy and its enforcement in America and they are the group 45+ white males who make up the largest number of the tea parties 59%
and the support Obama received unlike the others you mention
was due to the unprecedented collapse of the economy two months before the election so this support was not so much because he was a "Black man" but a rebuke against the Republicans who the independents blame for the collapse
but now these same independents are now trickling back to the fold who hear daily how bad Obama is doing by the 45+ male dominate news media
who will be out in force come April 15 to protest the tax cut Obama gave them
even though they like tax breaks but just not from Obama
- 2 votes
the tax cut Obama gave them
Government debt has grown, Obama has made government bigger. This is what people don't like.
Indeed, white males over 45 tend to be established and take care of themselves than other groups, so a party that wants to coddle and babysit them is a turnoff. Compare this to a 22 year old - he needs to be babysat and thus is a liberal until he can take care of himself.
Indeed, white males over 45 tend to be established and take care of themselves than other groups, so a party that wants to coddle and babysit them is a turnoff.
And many of them became established how? On the backs of those they want to deny the same opportunities and the rest are living off the wealth of their parents who abused and misused Native Americans and slaves.
- 2 votes
Obama has made government bigger. This is what people don't like.
lol where were they when bush was making gov bigger???
they seem to come out of the woodworks right after Obama was elected
now all of a sudden your concern about they diefict what a joke
not concern when bush took a surplus and turned into a trillion dollar dept but now concern because Obama has to spend our way out of the mess from under republican leadership yeah right
- 4 votes
The article says...
White voters have changed their view of Mr Obama not because of his skin colour, but because of what he has done—and what he has failed to do
but then the article shows that the statement is false when it quotes the man who says...
He thinks it is a lousy idea to try terrorists in civilian courts, where a judge could “release them with a stroke of a pen”. He is appalled that the Obama administration wants terrorists to be swiftly informed of their right to remain silent. “If we Mirandise these guys, we aren’t going to get anything out of them,” he says.
Since the man in the article is wrong about Obama doing things to protect terrorists (since most terrorists have been put away in civilian courts and military courts require mirandizing and lawyers as well)...it just proves that they are not turning against Obama because of things he's doing...but things they believe he's doing based on lies and lies and lies by the right-wing leaders. Maybe it's not racism...but it's not based on things he's actually "doing or not doing" either...it's based on lies and lies and lies by the Republicans and the right-wing media.
- 4 votes
"On the backs of those they want to deny the same opportunities and the rest are living off the wealth of their parents"
It is true that an employer makes money off the backs of his employees, no matter their color. As an employer, it behooves me to try and prevent my employees from setting up shop next to me and competing.
I have help as an employer in keeping my employees in line - by they black or white. Both government and the school system encourages people to be employees, not employers.
Take now with Obama "focusing on jobs". A job means you work for an employer.
Never, ever out of Obama's mouth will you hear him encourage people of any color to start their own businessness - it's all about school loans (to keep you in debt), and serving your employer by being an "employee".
Employees of any race should be ashamed of themselves. Begging someone for a "job". Why don't they do the hiring? Why don't they start their own businesses and leave something for their children?
The above paragraphs will be shocking and confusing to most. Society has done a very good job of keeping an employee-minded person thinking like an employee.
lol where were they when bush was making gov bigger???
A valid question. All presidents make government bigger to some degree. Obama has "doubled down" on Bush's expansion.
Earlier presidents, and even Bush, had the luxury of starting out with a smaller government than Obama.
I didn't like Bush's bailouts, and I like Obama's even less - they are bigger.
Never, ever out of Obama's mouth will you hear him encourage people of any color to start their own businessness - it's all about school loans (to keep you in debt), and serving your employer by being an "employee".
Really?
"Strengthen Small Business Administration programs that provide capital to minority-owned businesses, support outreach programs that help minority business owners apply for loans, and work to encourage the growth and capacity of minority firms." - PROMISE KEPT
Expand "the Small Business Administration's loan and micro-loan programs which provide start-up and long-term financing that small firms cannot receive through normal channels." - PROMISE KEPT
Will provide "temporary business tax incentives through 2009. The February 2008 stimulus bill increased maximum Section 179 expenses to $250,000 but this expires in December 2008. This provision will encourage all firms to pursue investment in the coming months, but will particularly benefit small firms which generally have smaller amounts of annual property purchases and so choose to expense the cost of their acquired property." - PROMISE KEPT
- 2 votes
Why is it not RACIST to say Middle-aged white men? I like white guys. My Dad and my brothers and sons are white men. Good grief, already! ViVi ^ ^
- 2 votes
#3 - Fri Apr 16, 2010 3:10 PM EDTIt's unfortunately when people only see Blacks as a minority. Not only does it show great ignorance, it shows racism.
The angry white male has oppressed white males and continues to keep them oppressed, a minority.
The angry white male has oppressed women and continues to keep them oppressed, a minority.
The angry white male has oppressed Native Americans and continues to keep them oppressed, a minority.
The angry white male has oppressed Hispanics and continues to keep them oppressed, a minority.
The only people the angry white male hasn't oppressed are those filling his pockets with cash: south american drug cartels, wall street, corporations, and other criminal elements.
- 1 vote
#4 - Sat Apr 17, 2010 6:08 AM EDTNice articulation, Power. I do believe the answer is that America needs to take a look at its people,and they will find that everyone is from somewhere ELSE. I'm German-Irish myself. The only true American is the Native American. The US people really have to start recognizing that this is a melting pot of ethnic and cultural mixes here, and discontinue the stereotyping of people because of their background and color.
- 4 votes
The angry white male has oppressed white males and continues to keep them oppressed, a minority.
The angry white male has oppressed women and continues to keep them oppressed, a minority.
The angry white male has oppressed Native Americans and continues to keep them oppressed, a minority.
The angry white male has oppressed Hispanics and continues to keep them oppressed, a minority.
Replace 'white' with brown, black, red, or yellow and your statement is still just as true. What do you know, angry, hateful, power-hungry people are responsible for most of the oppression in the world. That's not particularly new information.
- 1 vote
Wer're not talking about the world. We're talking about America.
- 2 votes
Wer're not talking about the world. We're talking about America.
I'm talking about America.
- 1 vote
The angry white male has oppressed white males and continues to keep them oppressed, a minority
you forgot rich wealthy white males have oppressed the poor/middle income white males/women
who will screw them every time but will of course have a scapegoat at hand IE:
the CRA /collapse of the economy,, which they tried to blame on Blacks/minorities, but we Now Know that loans under the CRA only account for 8% of the total loans in default the other 92% had nothing to do with the CRA act
Also and foremost it has been class warfare as well with the rich screwing all of the poor collectively but then using racism as its tool of diversion and blame
- 1 vote
#5 - Sat Apr 17, 2010 8:44 AM EDTInteresting and well written piece. Liked the second half especially...
Though as silly as it may seem to us, eventually stuff posed by Beck's "White culture" has to be defined, which he refused to do so himself. Beck, Limbaugh and company are perhaps the echo chamber of the Neglected and Frustrated far right white population...we can jokingly call them 'dittoheads', but they're emotions however are real, whether or not rightly or wrongly.
We should probably also recognize its not a vacuum thing, and it involves other ethnicities interactions as well...
Neglected and frustrated
Cultural issues add to Democrats’ woes with whites. Mr Obama’s first pick for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, is best known for backing a plan to deny promotion to white firefighters because of their race. (That is not how she phrased it, but it is what happened.) On another occasion, the president accused the police of acting “stupidly” when they briefly arrested a friend of his, a black Harvard professor who was locked out of, and broke into, his own house. Many blacks sympathised with the professor because they, too, have been presumed criminal. But many whites sympathised with the cops because they, too, have been presumed racist, says David Paul Kuhn, author of “The Neglected Voter”, a fine book about white men and politics. Both episodes reinforced the stereotype that the Democratic Party favours everyone except white males.
Perhaps in reaction to unified Democratic control in Washington, white men (among others) have grown more conservative in the past year. Support for gun rights rose from 51% to 64% between 2008 and 2009. Ballot initiatives to protect “hunters’ rights” will pull deer-shooters to the polls. All this spells trouble for Democrats in swing states and districts. Because the party did so well in 2006 and 2008, it is defending a lot of seats in “enemy territory”. Because incumbent Democrats in such seats are nervous, many are reluctant to support Mr Obama’s most ambitious reforms. And a slew of Democratic retirements is tilting the field yet further towards the Grand Old Party.
It will take more than a posse of piqued pale males to hand the Republicans control of Congress in November. White men are a shrinking share of the electorate: 36% in 2008, down from 43% in 1994. But still, the Democrats can hardly afford to alienate the nation’s largest ethnic group. And with the economy in the doldrums, it is not only white men who are angry.
I've been reading a couple of theories today, from white racial resentment to white priviledge to Evangelical fundamentalism to cultural atavism to North versus South, etc...a lot of new education and englightenment would help, and with the surprise outburst of these emotions, now's a good time to investigate and debate the current identity conflicts.
My only question is...what about the white females?! lol
- 1 vote
#6 - Sat Apr 17, 2010 5:49 PM EDTHe thinks it is a lousy idea to try terrorists in civilian courts, where a judge could “release them with a stroke of a pen”. He is appalled that the Obama administration wants terrorists to be swiftly informed of their right to remain silent. “If we Mirandise these guys, we aren’t going to get anything out of them,” he says.
This kind of comment from someone who is opposed to President Obama just shows how much people have bought the lies spread by the Republican party...because the fact is that over 300 terrorists have been tried in federal courts and put away, compared to less than ten in military courts. The truth is that terrorists are mirandized and given lawyers whether they are tried in civilian courts or military courts...there is no difference. But the lies and lies and lies that are put out there by the Republicans convince people like this man in the article that something is happened that IS NOT HAPPENING. That's the real shame.
- 5 votes
#7 - Sat Apr 17, 2010 6:27 PM EDTYou're right, redsfan...
So much misinformation and lying has been perpetuated by vested institutions, how much of that has played directly into the current emotions and behaviors we are viewing?
And mind you, a lot of the misinformation, its format and the organization of these emotional protests has been attributed to accepted institutionalized media in Fox News and radio and incredibly the US Republican political party.
What does that say of the political spectrum, demographics and maturity of the populations and institutions to propaganda?
- 4 votes
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
