Matt Posted 5 November 2008 Posted 5 November 2008 "Lewis Hamilton, First black Formula 1 champion" "Barrack Obama, First black president" "Paul Ince, First black english premiership manager" Is there any wonder everyone hangs on when something is racist or not? Fair enough there black, Fair enough there was a divide years ago but we're over that now aren't we? A multi-cultural world? Who cares if there black or white? Why even bring the matter into it? I just don't get it. But, If You're Thinkin' About My Baby It Don't Matter If You're Black Or White
dandannieldanok Posted 5 November 2008 Posted 5 November 2008 It's just stating fact, and actually a sign of how racism is being slowly eradicated, especially in the case of Obama.
Koke Posted 5 November 2008 Posted 5 November 2008 Obama is actually half black and half white. So the correct term should be ''The first mixed raced American President''
Ross-Kemp Posted 5 November 2008 Posted 5 November 2008 Obama is actually half black and half white.So the correct term should be ''The first mixed raced American President''
Samilktray Posted 5 November 2008 Posted 5 November 2008 Although it seems heaven-sent, we ain't ready, to have a black president.
davieG Posted 5 November 2008 Posted 5 November 2008 Obama is actually half black and half white.So the correct term should be ''The first mixed raced American President'' Probably but depending on the definition of 'race' I'm sure some of the previous Presidents will have had a mixed background although not including black African.
Tilley Posted 5 November 2008 Posted 5 November 2008 Don't even get me started on this issue. I could go on for hours.
Webbo Posted 5 November 2008 Posted 5 November 2008 Obama is actually half black and half white.So the correct term should be ''The first mixed raced American President'' Shouldn't that be 'dual heritage'?
Samilktray Posted 5 November 2008 Posted 5 November 2008 Obama needs a thread in celebration. Im not gonna make it though, it would only turn sour.
DB11 Posted 5 November 2008 Posted 5 November 2008 Obama needs a thread in celebration.Im not gonna make it though, it would only turn sour. This is pretty much what it's turned into lol
Steven Posted 5 November 2008 Posted 5 November 2008 Probably but depending on the definition of 'race' I'm sure some of the previous Presidents will have had a mixed background although not including black African. The definition of "black" when applied to people comes from the Deep South, and ended up elsewhere, at the beginning of the last Century to categorise people as being "black" if they had one drop of African ancestry. The so called one-drop rule. It would seem to me that such a rule is outdated but sadly seems to be still in use.
Brainy Posted 5 November 2008 Posted 5 November 2008 This is pretty much what it's turned into lol Why did you put an 'underline' to stop the emoticon from showing? :laugh: :laugh:
Ross-Kemp Posted 5 November 2008 Posted 5 November 2008 "Lewis Hamilton, First black Formula 1 champion""Barrack Obama, First black president" "Paul Ince, First black english premiership manager" Aren't they all half white. <_<
Samilktray Posted 5 November 2008 Posted 5 November 2008 Aren't they all half white. <_< I see no reason why that should have any effect on what they've achieved.
Head Honcho Posted 5 November 2008 Posted 5 November 2008 "Lewis Hamilton, First black Formula 1 champion""Barrack Obama, First black president" "Paul Ince, First black english premiership manager" Is there any wonder everyone hangs on when something is racist or not? Fair enough there black, Fair enough there was a divide years ago but we're over that now aren't we? A multi-cultural world? Who cares if there black or white? Why even bring the matter into it? I just don't get it. But, If You're Thinkin' About My Baby It Don't Matter If You're Black Or White Daggers will come looking for you my man mark my words I do however agree with you.
Daggers Posted 5 November 2008 Posted 5 November 2008 Fair enough there black, Fair enough there was a divide years ago but we're over that now aren't we? A multi-cultural world?Who cares if there black or white? Why even bring the matter into it? I just don't get it. Obviously, or you'd not have posted this and a series like it. The simple fact that these are all notable firsts and they are only just occurring in the 21st century should say something to you about the inequity of the meritocratic system to date. I don't get why it is such a big issue to you. You always post stuff like this and go to great lengths to point out that you aren't racist...but just wish Ole' Darkie would be a bit quieter about it, eh?!
Durnerz Posted 5 November 2008 Posted 5 November 2008 "Lewis Hamilton, First black Formula 1 champion""Barrack Obama, First black president" "Paul Ince, First black english premiership manager" Is there any wonder everyone hangs on when something is racist or not? Fair enough there black, Fair enough there was a divide years ago but we're over that now aren't we? A multi-cultural world? Who cares if there black or white? Why even bring the matter into it? I just don't get it. But, If You're Thinkin' About My Baby It Don't Matter If You're Black Or White Michael Jackson obviously never went to Texas...
hairy Posted 5 November 2008 Posted 5 November 2008 Why is it always focused on blacks to prove some point. What about Asians, Orientals and Latin Americans. I dont see them as achieving anywhere near as much as blacks in our western society.
LeeCovFox Posted 5 November 2008 Posted 5 November 2008 The most alarming thing for me about yesterday's voter turn out was that in some states, surveys suggest that 97% of black Americans voted for Obama. This concerns me because many of these voters gave Obama their support because of the colour of his skin. That to me smacks of a little racism in itself. It also worries me that many of these voters may have had very little knowledge of what Obama stands for politically. They voted blindly.
Benji Posted 5 November 2008 Posted 5 November 2008 The most alarming thing for me about yesterday's voter turn out was that in some states, surveys suggest that 97% of black Americans voted for Obama. This concerns me because many of these voters gave Obama their support because of the colour of his skin. That to me smacks of a little racism in itself. It also worries me that many of these voters may have had very little knowledge of what Obama stands for politically. They voted blindly. Agreed, there was a report about reaction here in London on the BBC and there was just random people saying how it would mean more ethnic politicians in Parliament and one guy shouting let's get a black Prime Minister now. That's fine, if they are the best for the job. The report then went onto all this stuff about the race percentage of ministers etc in London compared to their representative population. I'm not blind to deny some will hold positions through privilege and contacts, but let's put the right person in the job not someone who is the right race or gender. Still, historic week and in my opinion the best man won, he could be purple for all I care.
Fez of Mahrez Posted 5 November 2008 Posted 5 November 2008 The most alarming thing for me about yesterday's voter turn out was that in some states, surveys suggest that 97% of black Americans voted for Obama. This concerns me because many of these voters gave Obama their support because of the colour of his skin. That to me smacks of a little racism in itself. It also worries me that many of these voters may have had very little knowledge of what Obama stands for politically. They voted blindly. For a start, that seems like a wild generalisation. Secondly, would it be so bad anyway? Voters will always look to someone with whom they can identify. I wonder how many presidential candidates the African-Americans of New York or California have been able to identify with in the past. You've severely underestimated the superficiality of voters, especially those in the US, if you think this sort of thing hasn't been going on for decades in different guises. Just think of the Kennedy v Nixon TV debates: The Great Debates marked television's grand entrance into presidential politics. They afforded the first real opportunity for voters to see their candidates in competition, and the visual contrast was dramatic. In August, Nixon had seriously injured his knee and spent two weeks in the hospital. By the time of the first debate he was still twenty pounds underweight, his pallor still poor. He arrived at the debate in an ill-fitting shirt, and refused make-up to improve his color and lighten his perpetual "5:00 o'clock shadow." Kennedy, by contrast, had spent early September campaigning in California. He was tan and confident and well-rested. "I had never seen him looking so fit," Nixon later wrote.In substance, the candidates were much more evenly matched. Indeed, those who heard the first debate on the radio pronounced Nixon the winner. But the 70 million who watched television saw a candidate still sickly and obviously discomforted by Kennedy's smooth delivery and charisma. Those television viewers focused on what they saw, not what they heard. Studies of the audience indicated that, among television viewers, Kennedy was perceived the winner of the first debate by a very large margin. Thirdly, this whole "debate" is ludicrous anyway. This isn't a major breakthrough that follows on naturally from the Civil Rights movement and the progress of the late 1960s? Don't make me laugh. Will Matt be starting the same indignant threads if and when the first woman is elected President?
Finnegan Posted 5 November 2008 Posted 5 November 2008 I was the first ever black Welshman to represent FoxesTalk. Truth.
LeeCovFox Posted 5 November 2008 Posted 5 November 2008 For a start, that seems like a wild generalisation. Secondly, would it be so bad anyway? Voters will always look to someone with whom they can identify. I wonder how many presidential candidates the African-Americans of New York or California have been able to identify with in the past. You've severely underestimated the superficiality of voters, especially those in the US, if you think this sort of thing hasn't been going on for decades in different guises. Just think of the Kennedy v Nixon TV debate. I agree that I have generalised somewhat, but certainly not wildly. I haven't underestimated the superficiality of voters , I know it has always been an issue. I speak of this election only because it is the one which is topical. That it has always been an issue does not make it concern me any less. The number of new voters from black backgrounds who voted to Obama suggests to me that his race was the predominant factor in the attraction of many to him. Would it be so bad? In this case probably not. I would have voted for Obama myself. In answer to you question about how many prior candidates the black people of California and New York have been able to identify with in the past, probably not many. But what concerns me is that I don't see Obama as particularly different to any previous candidate. He is a politician who has played the game of politics extremely well throughout his campaign, but then so have many others in the past. If people have identified him based on nothing more than his skin colour, as I believe to be the case with many, then yes, it concerns me.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.