Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

n2doc

(47,953 posts)
Wed Jul 16, 2014, 10:14 AM Jul 2014

Talking openly about Obama and race

BY JELANI COBB

In September, 2009, just eight months into Barack Obama’s first term, when it was still possible for unsentimental observers to perceive the Tea Party’s riotous fulminations as a passing blip, Jimmy Carter remarked that opposition to the President’s agenda was driven, largely, by one thing: race. “I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African-American,” Carter said. He went on:

I live in the South, and I’ve seen the South come a long way, and I’ve seen the rest of the country that shared the South’s attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African-Americans. And that racism inclination still exists. And I think it’s bubbled up to the surface because of the belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country.
Carter, then eighty-five years old, well into the say-anything years of public life, and still mildly tainted, even among some Democrats, as a negative ideal of the Chief Executive, was quickly criticized for the remarks. Even Obama took pains to distance himself from Carter’s words. Yet, as a white Southerner (he became governor of Georgia at a time when it had barely moved past legalized segregation), a Democrat, and a former President, there was perhaps no one better suited than Carter to recognize the racial trip wires that lay in wait for the first black Commander-in-Chief.

It’s remembered now that Bill Clinton’s cultural affinity for African-Americans led to him being dubbed the “first black President,” but that’s not entirely precise. More specifically, Toni Morrison, writing in The New Yorker, presented the term in the wake of the impeachment proceedings, offering that the rhetoric around Clinton’s family background, his electorate, his personal friendships—and his appetites—had rendered him an effigy of blackness, offering a window into how the public, or a good part of it, would behave in the unlikely event that an actual black person achieved the Presidency.


more

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014/07/talking-openly-about-obama-and-race.html

20 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Talking openly about Obama and race (Original Post) n2doc Jul 2014 OP
the Clinton example disproves this Enrique Jul 2014 #1
AQnd there was the same usage of racist signs ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #2
Have they accussed Barrack Obama Cosmocat Jul 2014 #3
Why, yes ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #6
No they haven't Cosmocat Jul 2014 #10
You asked if the RW had accused ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #12
Republicans support President Obama! Cosmocat Jul 2014 #13
Yeah. Okay ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #15
lol Cosmocat Jul 2014 #16
FWIW ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #17
yeah Cosmocat Jul 2014 #19
Okay ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #20
The root is him being a D Doctor_J Jul 2014 #14
I am becoming more convinced Cosmocat Jul 2014 #18
imagine if someone wrote this about Malia Enrique Jul 2014 #5
I'm not seeing much difference ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #7
you were right in your other post about the past crazy vs. the current crazy Enrique Jul 2014 #8
right Cosmocat Jul 2014 #11
You are so correct Cosmocat Jul 2014 #4
imagine if the OK City bombing happened now Enrique Jul 2014 #9

Enrique

(27,461 posts)
1. the Clinton example disproves this
Wed Jul 16, 2014, 10:26 AM
Jul 2014

as nutty as the RW is now, they were nuttier under Clinton. And there was the kind of rage against that president, and it took the same form, there was the same wailing "I want my country back!" The same denying of his legitimacy. Remember, they impeached him.

This author has a paragraph about Clinton but it's not clear how it fits into the story.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
2. AQnd there was the same usage of racist signs ...
Wed Jul 16, 2014, 02:57 PM
Jul 2014

Oh, wait!

And I do not recall a single "I want my country back" wail.

There is no question, the RW hated Clinton; but one would be hard pressed to suggest that it was anywhere near the same as the current crazy.

Cosmocat

(14,564 posts)
3. Have they accussed Barrack Obama
Wed Jul 16, 2014, 03:09 PM
Jul 2014

of being a drug dealer and murderer?

Look, YES, their party is a VERY cozy home to racists.

And, they have race baited to gin up their "base" to hate on this President 24-7 since he got elected.

But, they do the same thing to ANY democrat.

Make no mistake, had Hillary won instead of Barrack Obama it would have been just as bad, with misogyny replacing the race baiting.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
6. Why, yes ...
Wed Jul 16, 2014, 05:26 PM
Jul 2014

Yes, they have.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/05/11/updated-fox-news-smears-obama-as-a-drug-dealer/186407

http://www.amazon.com/Barack-Obama-Larry-Sinclair-Cocaine/dp/0578013878

Make no mistake, had Hillary won instead of Barrack Obama it would have been just as bad, with misogyny replacing the race baiting.


Without a doubt ... but that does not remove the racist tone of the right's attacks on President Obama. And had HRC won, it would not remove the sexist/misogynistic attack, by a/the party that is decidedly comprised of racists and misogynists.

Cosmocat

(14,564 posts)
10. No they haven't
Thu Jul 17, 2014, 07:56 AM
Jul 2014

This is simply just not being honest.

A few wingnuts might have thrown something out, but this is NOTHING along the lines of the Vince Foster thing and the hue and cry that Clinton was a drug dealer back then.

It was a foundational thing to them.

I never heard of the things you just posted, I heard daily about how Clinton was a drug dealer and had Vince Foster killed.

And, your point about "racist tone" is exactly what I am saying.

YES, they are a cozy home to racists and YES, relentlessly they have race baited.

But, the root is him being a D.

They are also a home to misogyny, but just as they love Sarah Palin they have African American's they love, as long as they are Rs.

Again, while they will NEVER reciprocate, it totally in their shit ass world JUSTIFIES in their mind that they aren't racists when the subtles to this are not clearly differentiated.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
12. You asked if the RW had accused ...
Thu Jul 17, 2014, 08:12 AM
Jul 2014

President Obama of being a drug dealer and a murder ...

I post links to a RW rag and amazon for a book that does both ...

And you call me dishonest because it was only "a few wingnuts"?

Okay!

They are also a home to misogyny, but just as they love Sarah Palin they have African American's they love, as long as they are Rs.


Masters always love their obedient slaves.

Cosmocat

(14,564 posts)
13. Republicans support President Obama!
Thu Jul 17, 2014, 08:46 AM
Jul 2014
http://www.republicansforobama.org/

You are right.

I never heard of this group before, but clearly Republicans actually support President Obama because there are SOME out there that do.
 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
15. Yeah. Okay ...
Thu Jul 17, 2014, 10:43 AM
Jul 2014

that would be relevant if the statement was, "No republicans support President Obama." But it wasn't ... you said the RW hasn't accused President Obama of being a drug dealer or a murder ... there, clearly and provably, has been that charge from the right.

Let it go ... you are, by your own "A few wingnuts might have thrown something out" admission, incorrect in your assertion.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
17. FWIW ...
Thu Jul 17, 2014, 11:13 AM
Jul 2014

admitting error, especially on inconsequential matters, is a sign of strength/emotional maturity.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
20. Okay ...
Thu Jul 17, 2014, 11:25 AM
Jul 2014

what am I wrong about ... other than the high offense of pointing out that you made an incorrect statement?

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
14. The root is him being a D
Thu Jul 17, 2014, 10:32 AM
Jul 2014

Yep. It was just as bad with WJC, and will be just as bad with HRC. which makes our leaders pandering to them even more revolting. Vast numbers of Americans hate republicans. What we need is a leader who also hates them right back.

Cosmocat

(14,564 posts)
18. I am becoming more convinced
Thu Jul 17, 2014, 11:16 AM
Jul 2014

that the democrats right now are just as damaging as the republicans by cowering in a corner and being afraid to mix it up.

republicans are completely off the hook now, and with the media having absolutely no interest in calling them the lunatics they are, they are completely unchecked.

They have their base completely unified, cull enough of the gulliable into their way of thinking and leave all but democrats thinking "they are all the same ..."

In that context, there is nothing to lose by mixing it up.

People hate ALL politicians anyways.

BUT, they are concerned about their jobs, and know the math and unspoken golden rule of politics - keeping your mouth shut and flying under the radar is better than actually saying something of substance ...

Enrique

(27,461 posts)
5. imagine if someone wrote this about Malia
Wed Jul 16, 2014, 05:24 PM
Jul 2014

this was in National Review, and it didn't even cause any kind of outcry. Imagine if someone wrote this about Malia:

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2001/update022301.html

"I hate Chelsea Clinton," John Derbyshire declares in his Feb. 15 column. He admits at first that he doesn't have a clear reason for doing so, but one certainly emerges: She's a Clinton -- more specifically, "the vile genetic inheritance of Bill and Hillary Clinton."

"Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past — I'm not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble — recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin's penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an "enemy of the people". The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, "clan liability". In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished "to the ninth degree": that is, everyone in the offender's own generation would be killed, and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed."

Enrique

(27,461 posts)
8. you were right in your other post about the past crazy vs. the current crazy
Wed Jul 16, 2014, 05:37 PM
Jul 2014

the current crazy pales in comparison to the RW crazy under Clinton. Remember OK City?

I posted a column in the National Review fantasizing about KILLING Chelsea Clinton, and you posted a bunch of nobodies talking trash.

And again, they IMPEACHED Clinton. IMPEACHED.

Cosmocat

(14,564 posts)
4. You are so correct
Wed Jul 16, 2014, 03:14 PM
Jul 2014

There is a subtly to this that people just don't or don't want to get.

YES, their party is a cozy home to racists and they have absolutely race baited relentlessly since he was elected.

But, the rally point is that that he is a democrat, and racism and race baiting are the tools to foment deranged hatred at large.

You are correct, they were just as bad about Clinton, I remember it clearly, and in my younger, less experience and more niave years was always completely befuddled how they could hate "Bubba" so much.

They SERIOUSLY thought and pushed the meme that he was a drug dealer and had someone murdered. They put out stories when Bush II took over, how he and Hillary stole shit from the white house and had their staff shit on the tables.

If the Republicans said these things about this president, it would be proof positive that it was based in racism.

It is hard, cause they will NEVER reciprocate it, but we have to be better, clearer and more honest than them. And, saying the ROOT of the opposition to this President is racism hurts the battle against racism.

Enrique

(27,461 posts)
9. imagine if the OK City bombing happened now
Wed Jul 16, 2014, 05:39 PM
Jul 2014

people forget all that stuff from that time, they think it all started with Obama.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Talking openly about Obam...