What will you black conservatives tell your grandchildren?It’s a question which I take to imply that, somehow, our grandchildren will presume to vilify us for voting against the man who will become the first black president of the United States. It’s a very easy question to answer, actually: we believe that political, social, moral and spiritual principles take precedence over ethnic tribalism and we followed through on that assertion. But I’m guessing that Steve needs things spelled out a bit more, so I’ll do it for him and for my great nieces and nephews and—perhaps—any grandchildren I might have through being a step-mother. Here goes.
When a voter picks a candidate to serve in an office, that voter is essentially saying “Of all the choices available, I think that this person will do a better job in that office that all of the other available candidates.” In this case we are, of course, talking about the office of President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces. We are talking about a person whose job it is to support and defend the U.S. Constitution, the American land and the American people.
In order to make that decision the American voters need information and during the campaign season we are presented with information designed to allow the voters to make an informed decision as to which of the candidates will be the most competent in fulfilling the objective particulars of that office. By November 4th, we are supposed to come to a conclusion about this matter and record that conclusion in the voting booth.
While we are evaluating all of the information which can indicate a candidate’s competency at supporting and defending the U.S. Constitution, the American land and the American people, we have to take the information we receive and decide whether that information is relevant to the particulars of the office in question. Additionally, we have to decide whether the positive information outweighs the negative. And on top of that, we have to decide which candidate’s positive-negative ratio is better than that all of the others.
I concluded that the things which I know about Barack Obama which are relevant to his possible abilities to adequately support and defend the U.S. Constitution, the American land and the American people —his political background, his expressed political/social ideas and his overall judgment were either of lower quality than John McCain’s or that those things would be overtly detrimental to the well-being of this nation. I also concluded that either man’s ethnicity/race/color was insignificant factor in making a judgment as who was able to better serve this nation and, therefore, was irrelevant to making that decision.
I made my decision by making judgments about the following:
• Barack Obama’s decisions about the Surge conducted in Iraq
• His words regarding the success of that Surge
• His words about the US Constitution in 2001
• His words to Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher.
• His voting record in the Illinois Senate
• His voting record in the US Senate
• His words about his association with domestic terrorist William Ayers
• His adherence to Black Liberation Theology as formulated by James Cone and as articulated by Jeremiah Wright, Emeritus pastor of Trinity United Church of “Christ”
• His claim to not know the nature of Wright’s theological stance and to not have heard the latter’s more incendiary sermons after sitting in the pews of Wright’s church for twenty years.
• His stance on abortion and on the “Born Alive” provision in Illinois law.
• His stated intention to conduct presidential-level negotiations with rogue heads of state
• His promise to accept public funding for his campaign
There are many more factors but I hope that I have formed a picture---I did not like Barack Obama's words and/or subsequent actions regarding the above topics. And I would state such to the younger members of my family without hesitation. And if my sisters and my brother-in-law are doing their jobs properly, their children will understand that if a presidential candidate goes against every dearly-held ideology and principle in which you believe but is your same color, it’s a no-brainer to make the decision to vote against him/her.
Because if a candidate’s political, social and moral values are an anathema to a given voter but that voter chooses that candidate anyway solely because the voter shares race/ethnicity with the candidate and/or because of historical precedent, that voter has exchanged principle for emotion and for carnality. The voter has exchanged political, moral and spiritual values for pride of tribe (blacks) or to assuage tribal guilt (whites).
And that, good sir, is the very illustration of a selling-out.
However, if one’s “principles” are for sale, I guess that’s not such a big deal. And if one has no principles, we all know what’s being exchanged, what’s being sold: one’s very person. One's soul.
I’ll tell the kids that I retained mine.
UPDATE: Unfortunately, uptownsteve is banned. Pearls, swine, you know.
UPDATE: Welcome, friends from Ace of Spades HQ!
"The voter has exchanged political, moral and spiritual values for pride of tribe (blacks) or to assuage tribal guilt (whites)."
So a clear majority of Americans have chosen Obama's message of change and redirection from the corruption, incompetence, bellicosity and cronyism of the Bush Administration which has wrecked this countries economy, infrastructure, prestige and spirit because of black tribalism and white guilt?
I've now concluded that you are not merely misguided and confused but a bottom dwelling hustler.
A cyberspace HO.
You, like Shay Riley, are just trying to draw attention to yourself by being the anti black black woman.
God bless you sweetie.
Cuz the white people you perform for don't give two craps about you.
Once they're off this board they laugh at you.
Hopefully one day you'll figure that out.
Posted by: uptownsteve | November 06, 2008 at 02:22 PM
uptownsteve = OWNED
Posted by: james in bklyn | November 06, 2008 at 02:32 PM
Well said!
Posted by: Karen of Scottsdale | November 06, 2008 at 02:37 PM
Oh, so you're gonna ban me now?
You black righties are such pathetic frauds.
baldilocks sez: Did you get a ban message? Did you forget that my comments are moderated? Or perhaps you just magically lost your ability to read, assuming that you ever possessed that ability?
You have used up your insult chits, whiny little boy.
Posted by: uptownsteve | November 06, 2008 at 02:39 PM
What is it about liberals that they're never satisfied with just debating an opponent but must stoop to name-calling and villification? Down to and including sexual swipes. Charming people. Enjoy your hangover when Barry's "hope" evaporates and his "change" turns out to be more radical than even you Bush haters can stomach.
Posted by: Dick Stanley | November 06, 2008 at 02:57 PM
Wait, so these color-obsessed freaks are getting all Oreo on your ass now Baldi? That's ridiculous!
Barak Obama was elected for the color of his skin. He was not elected for his policy. And if Baldi voted McCain, it was because she is more interested in policy than color. And a helluva lot more interested in America.
To berate a black woman because she didn't vote for the black man is pretty low - as low as the Black panthers standing outside the Philly polling station. Why would Baldi want to be part of your ugly, thuggish little gang?
RG
Posted by: RightGirl | November 06, 2008 at 03:04 PM
"if a candidate’s political, social and moral values are an anathema to a given voter but that voter chooses that candidate anyway"
I don't think you could make it any clearer.
A lot of people voted for Obama because they agree with his political, social or moral values.
A lot of others voted for him without really knowing much at all about him, except that they were sick of Bush, and they saw McCain as more of the same.
But if someone looked at his whole resume', said, "there's not a thing there I like or agree with, besides the fact that he's a black man, and I'm going to vote for him anyway;" well, then, that's pretty much the definition of black tribalism or white guilt.
Therefore, for me to have voted for him, or for Juliette to have voted for him, given that we are opposed to his foreign policies, disagree with his social policies, and see him as the much riskier and less experienced of the two major candidates, would have been an act of black tribalism or white guilt.
I don't see where that implies that the clear majority of Americans voted for Obama for those reasons, unless you are conceding that, by any rational standards, McCain would have been the better choice.
Even I'm not so in the tank for McCain as to go along with that.
Posted by: notropis | November 06, 2008 at 03:06 PM
"Barak Obama was elected for the color of his skin."
Yeah, being black sure is an advantage in US Presidential elections.
The previous 43 were..............?
Do you people smoke crack?
Posted by: uptownsteve | November 06, 2008 at 03:21 PM
Baldilocks,
If you or any of your buddies can make an intelligent argument for the continuance of the conservative policies that this country has been subjected to for the last 8 years, which have brought this nation to the sorry state that it currently is in, which a prepeponderance of the electorate, WHITE BLACK BROWN AND YELLOW have REJECTED, then I'll leave your board permanently.
GO.
And don't try to tell me that Bush was a liberal.
Posted by: uptownsteve | November 06, 2008 at 03:26 PM
Sorry, but you're leaving now.
I see from your first comment to your last one, Steve, that I was casting my pearls before swine. And I see that you can't stop hurling the basest of insults.
Tell you what, since you refuse to communicate in good-faith and you assume bad-faith from me, I am going to ban you. You can go Hope, Change and whine about it elsewhere.
A little advice, Steve: when you win, you're supposed to act like a winner. You're not doing that. Perhaps you don't know how.
It's interesting that you would suppose that "they" are laughing at me. And it's interesting that you would suppose that I would care; that my stance is based on what people think--in this case a set of white ones.
That's what your problem is, isn't it? You care too much about what people--black and white--think about you. The fact that other people have other bases for making decisions and are brave enough to stand on those bases shames you, doesn't it? It illuminates your cowardice.
You refuse to understand that people are different for you even if the are the same color or you don't have the tools to understand it. So you have to *try* to make us suffer for not being what you want. You're a raving narcissist.
You're also working out your little childhood traumas on this board; I saw you doing that at Booker Rising. Well, I'm sorry that you got hurt by somebody or somebodies back in the day because you weren't like them in some way, but I'm not going to let you work out your problems here. I suspect Shay got tired of your psycho outbursts as well.
Take care and, for your own sake, seek help.
Posted by: baldilocks | November 06, 2008 at 03:31 PM
Oh BTW, thanks for the blog fodder. I guess that this is an example of unintended consequences. Go forth and help out other black conservatives, Steve. :-)
Posted by: baldilocks | November 06, 2008 at 03:45 PM
I would tell anyone that DNA-based voting (ethnic, gender, whatever) is utterly false, and the people who'd say that
"dissent is the highest form of patriotism"
followed by
"you're racist if you don't subscribe to Mr. Obama's policies"
are beyond deluded.
Posted by: c. smith | November 06, 2008 at 04:51 PM
gotta add on which planet does a 3m popular vote win in a country of 200m count as a landslide victory?
looks about as close to 50% of america as it can be
and...oh wait, nevermind...you've already been banned. good riddance
Posted by: james in bklyn | November 06, 2008 at 06:02 PM
By the EVC (the part that counts) it is a landslide.
Posted by: baldilocks | November 06, 2008 at 06:06 PM
If a future grandchild ever tried to call me to account for how I vote, I would tell him or her that it was my turn and I voted how I wanted; and when it's their turn they can vote how they want.
Re: idea that white folks are laughing at anybody "performing" for them - as a white person I suggest that Steve get some medication for those aural hallucinations he's got. I'm not laughing and I don't hear anybody else laughing either.
Posted by: Laura(southernxyl) | November 06, 2008 at 07:55 PM
It's a shame that the election was race-based, but it was. Only 3% of black voters here did not vote for Obama...but how could it have been otherwise?
...it's schizophrenic in a way, because in general, blacks (in my neighborhood, anyway) tend to vote conservative on social issues like, say, abortion on demand [as in what was once said to me -- "that child is going to abort my grandbaby over my dead body"]. Yet Obama was surely the most brutal of pro-aborters to come down the pike in a long, long time. But that didn't matter.
You see, the racial tensions in a small, backwater rural area that knew slavery longer than it has known true freedom are bound to affect people's voting decisions at a visceral level that cannot be overwritten by rational commands.
When I say our slave heritage here is longer than our history of freedom, I am calculating from the time the area was settled and began to be cultivated thru the Civil War and the Emancipation till now.
Back in the early 17th century the English pushed the colonists in Virginia to use African slaves because that's what England was selling at the moment: African slaves (as it was also to hook the Chinese on opium when Britannia found that to be good economic policy and had opium to push).
England wanted tobacco for the global market and Virginia was the place to grow it. And besides, the colony of Virginia didn't have enough white indentured slaves (debtors or criminals serving time) to do the labor intensive work needed for tobacco so even those who fought the importation of slaves had to bow before King Tobacco and accept the inevitable.
OTOH, that's why many left in disgust and moved inland toward the mountainous regions where tobacco didn't grow. Slaves wouldn't be forced there as England saw no value in it (to this day, mountainous southwestern VA is sparsely settled with black people compared to the Tidewater area).
So slavery lasted about 260 years all told. Liberty -- of a sort -- was wrested finally from the dead hands of fallen tobacco and cotton planters.
But we all know that true freedom didn't begin then. Freedom is based on a citizenship that doesn't have first and second class tiers, and the possibility for real equality didn't begin until the middle of the 20th century -- it's a long, long march from the 1610's to the 1960's.
Around here, we just had a commemoration this year of the march of black students on the town hall back in the 1950's to demand better educational facilities. Before marches were the "cool" thing to do these brave kids took it on just to get "separate but equal".
A few years later, with the advent of integration, the public schools would close down rather than allow black children in.*
So in reality we've gone from the early 17th century thru the mid 20th century with black people carrying a large burden of social stigma.
We probably have at least another hundred years to go before the road even begins to level out in terms of time in servitude vs time in freedom. Guess which kind of time seems to pass more slowly??
So sure, great gains have been made, but...
... if we could just get the Democrats to quit selling aggrieved resentment disguised as entitlements (have they NO integrity at all??), we could move along a whole lot faster.
__________
*Little did those bigots who closed the public schools know that they would be the seed of a future movement of home-schooling as both black and white parents realized that government schools don't do a very good job. To this day, Virginia has loosely held the reins of rule for home-schoolers.
___________
As for my personal opinion on this election, I didn't vote for Obama. With his Axelrods and Emmanuels and Ayers', O is going to bring some kind of European putsch scenario into the higher echelons of American politics we haven't seen before. I think it will scar us. It scares the bejeezus out of me.
I don't consider him an African American and his election is sad because we still, after all these years, have not elected a black man to the Presidency. He's a fake.
My consolation? We definitely *do* have an African American First Lady. And she's gonna make Hillary look charming in comparison. He's a fake, but she's for real.
What you see with Michelle is what you get. You might not like it, but at least it's familiar and you know who you're dealing with.
Posted by: Dymphna | November 06, 2008 at 08:20 PM
I like what you wrote, Dymphna, especially the observation that black Americans have only having been free de facto since the 1960s. Too many Americans forget this.
One thing: since my biological father is Kenyan and my mother is a black American, does that mean I'm half "African-American?" I find that concept a silly one.
This is why I don't use the term "African-American." Unless we're talking about an immigrant from the continent, the term should be discarded.
Posted by: baldilocks | November 06, 2008 at 08:30 PM
"One thing: since my biological father is Kenyan and my mother is a black American, does that mean I'm half "African-American?" I find that concept a silly one."
Yeah, I've mentioned this before, but whenever I've been compelled to disclose my children's race (in a forced-choice situation), I've called them African-American. I mean, their mother is African (now first generation US citizen) and their father is American.
On the other hand, now that the kids are old enough to represent themselves, they militantly avoid any labels, beyond "American."
(Both are in the USMC JROTC program, and I've never felt more a piker or pretender than when I try to talk patriotism with my girls....)
Posted by: notropis | November 06, 2008 at 08:42 PM
BL, you rock!
Love 'ya girl!
Posted by: thebronze | November 06, 2008 at 10:49 PM
Found this thread via Ace.
Wow. Baldilocks, thanks for making my wee hours enjoyable.
Pearls before swine was too generous a metaphor. I like to call posters like "uptownsteve" what they really are.
Pearls before retards is more like it.
Posted by: ErislDysnomia | November 06, 2008 at 11:00 PM
That nasty commenter goes to show you that one thing that's worse than a sore loser is a proud and naughty sore winner.
Good job, woman! Keep it up!
Posted by: newton | November 06, 2008 at 11:05 PM
The blacks who voted based on everything BUT skin color will someday (soon) be recognized as the true heroes in this fiasco.
White libs gave us our first affirmative-action president. The standards were abolished for Obama. He wasn't required to unseal his records, explain his relationships with unsavory characters, account for missing years of his life, or answer any difficult questions. Career-killing gaffes were discreetly ignored, the way you overlook the involuntary outbursts of a Tourette's sufferer.
White libs decided that since Obama's black, he's not capable of being held to the standards to which they held Sarah Palin. Electing a black president made them feel all warm and toasty. They were kind to an inferior, and it made them like themselves better.
Plenty of demented conservatives, on the other hand, promised Sarah Palin that they'd vote for her, so she went through utter hell and campaigned her heart out, and then they either stayed home or voted for Obama to "teach the Republicans a lesson." They stabbed her in back without a qualm.
About 20 percent of conservatives are no different than Code Pink. Political power before all, including their own country, their own children, and a terrific governor who only had their best interests at heart. Sorry, Governor. Nothing personal!
Don't get me started on the cocktail-party conservatives, either. Suffice to say I'm done reading their twaddle or watching them break wind through their mouths on TV.
The clearest-thinking people in this disaster are black Americans who voted with their heads and not their skin or their raging obsessions with abortion and homosexuality.
Luckily Obama is already cratering. The Dems in Congress are telling him he's overreaching, and he's put up this insane Web site full of Stalinist plans that make you laugh hysterically and then go out and buy more guns.
Obama will be our worst president ever, and he'll set race relations back decades. Blacks who voted against him will become folk heroes, these eerily prescient Yodas that nobody listened to.
It'll be just as condescending as the urge that gave us our first affirmative-action president, but what are you going to do?
I thought we had this race-thing figured out, but we're going backwards.
Makes me sick.
Posted by: Duck Bank | November 06, 2008 at 11:29 PM
What an amazing exchange Baldilocks!
I just got sent over from Ace, and you've been added to my feeds. Keep up the good work, can't wait to read more of your work.
Posted by: James | November 06, 2008 at 11:33 PM
I'm white, and I'm not laughing at anyone.
It's not funny that a demographic group in America still votes based on race. (uptownsteve, people who do that are racist.)
Posted by: Anon | November 06, 2008 at 11:39 PM
Baldilocks, you are a true American and one hell of a writer.
Posted by: Lee | November 06, 2008 at 11:40 PM
Interesting, Steve, I wasn't laughing at Juliette's words. It's been a very long day, I am coming to realise how upset I really am, and I have a lot of thoughts running through my mind. And yet her words gave me enough ease to go to sleep, my mind less troubled.
You on the other hand, you do not sound as if you care about this country or its citizens. Your words betray a small person of bitter mind, filled with hatred so that when you lose you lash out (it's so much easier than self assessment), when you win you lash out. You seem like the type of person who is so angry at something (perhaps done to you, at Juliette mused) that you can feel better only by attempting to reduce others.
Juliette, I have been trying to perform a sort of balancing act these last 24 hours or so. I'm angry and upset but I don't want to define myself by that. I have no trust in Obama and I refuse to surrender the ability to direct my own life. But I want my country to succeed and stay strong, and my boy to have a prosperous future.
You gave me a wonderful reminder just now when I read your words of praying for Obama. I'm not sure when we will see the fruits of these prayers, but it did give me a way to calm my spirit tonight.
Grace and dignity. That in fact, Steve, is the impression of Juliette I take away when I am done here.
Posted by: fireweednectar | November 06, 2008 at 11:49 PM
Beautiful post, Baldilocks.
I was struggling with people saying today that even those who voted McCain should be proud that today we have our first black President. Struck me odd, and I wondered why I wasn't particularly moved by the fact. I realized that it was because I didn't see why Obama deserved any credit for the feat. His candidacy bears no resemblance to the entrance of Jackie Robinson into baseball, for instance. Recall how difficult it was for Robinson, and what him being there meant to the country, and to the black people, who at that time were truly oppressed. In the case of Barack Obama, it is completely different. So much so that in his case, being black was an advantage. An advantage! Doesn't that more indicate that the perceived sense of victim of the black community was an illusion? Hasn't that been the case for at least a decade, maybe two? Isn't it that the problem of race has been an internal problem to the black community, and external to the white community for years now? I'd argue that JFK getting elected as a Catholic was far more notable than that Barack Obama has been elected as the first black President.
That's how I was thinking. After reading Dymphna's comment, I think I understand the emotion of the black community better, but only so much. After all, mistreatment was the norm for most immigrants here. When my parents married in 1960, there were states where they would have been denied a marriage license as an Asian/white couple. But they never clued me in that I should resent this country and most of it's people.
The good news is, my six year old, and his friends really have no clue about race as a divider. Last year at MLK day, they didn't get the stuff they did in class about King and the civil rights movement. I had to explain it as a man standing bravely up to bullies for it to make sense to him. It was a beautiful thing.
Posted by: douglas | November 06, 2008 at 11:54 PM
What an unfortunately all-too-typical jackass, this guy Steve.
It is a sad thing that sometimes something really dumb must be done before a person can move on with their life. (Jasper Fforde has a hilarious take on this in his Thursday Next series, where the UK is on the verge of entering a disastrous war because it been accumulating unexpressed stupidity for so long it threaten to burst forth all at once.) A writer of my acquaintance once published an embarrassingly bad novel that still attracted a large readership based on his past greatness. When asked, he said he just couldn't get anything else done until he'd gotten that wretched book out of his system.
It appears we've done this on a national scale. Almost since birth, my generation of tail-end boomers has been fed racial guilt by the shovel-load, regardless of whether we showed the slightest inclination to behave badly towards others on the basis of where their ancestors were shaped by local conditions in pre-technological times. We been trained to feel terrible about things to which we were never a party nor any of our ancestors. (The Civil War was decades past when my all of my grandparents or great-grandparents came to America and it's difficult to imagine them acting in any way worse than what they received as Jews.) As a consequence, the first time a melanin-advantaged man who isn't as blatantly obnoxious as an Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson runs for the Presidency, he is given pretty much a free ride without consideration for his minuscule experience, obscure past, dubious associates, and stunningly bad policies.
Can anyone say with a straight face that somebody who couldn't exploit that indoctrinated racial guilt would have gotten past the early primaries with Obama's massive list of negatives?
We've had explosions of stupidity in the past. Far too many people thought there was no end to the dot.com madness and claimed there was a 'New Economy' but were eventually forced to admit that a business model with little or no net revenues was a loser. We've had an administration that adopted some of its oppositions worst traits and were surprised when this angered the base. We've had a policy of lending large sums of money to persons utterly unable to make good on the transaction, often making those people the hardest hit when the bad loans inevitably lead to economic collapse. This was done in the belief it was helping people who'd been wrongly denied and making us all better as a result. In real life, making more poor people doesn't make the already poor better off.
Steve wants to know how those of us will explain not voting for Obama to our grandchildren. Any grandchild of mine who still asks that question when it reaches voting age is out of the will. Rather than feel compelled to defend my choice, I'll ask how the people who brought the likes of Stalin, Mao, Castro, Khomeini, and someday Hugo Chavez to power explained it to their grandchildren.
Posted by: epobirs | November 07, 2008 at 12:06 AM
What an unfortunately all-too-typical jackass, this guy Steve.
It is a sad thing that sometimes something really dumb must be done before a person can move on with their life. (Jasper Fforde has a hilarious take on this in his Thursday Next series, where the UK is on the verge of entering a disastrous war because it been accumulating unexpressed stupidity for so long it threaten to burst forth all at once.) A writer of my acquaintance once published an embarrassingly bad novel that still attracted a large readership based on his past greatness. When asked, he said he just couldn't get anything else done until he'd gotten that wretched book out of his system.
It appears we've done this on a national scale. Almost since birth, my generation of tail-end boomers has been fed racial guilt by the shovel-load, regardless of whether we showed the slightest inclination to behave badly towards others on the basis of where their ancestors were shaped by local conditions in pre-technological times. We been trained to feel terrible about things to which we were never a party nor any of our ancestors. (The Civil War was decades past when my all of my grandparents or great-grandparents came to America and it's difficult to imagine them acting in any way worse than what they received as Jews.) As a consequence, the first time a melanin-advantaged man who isn't as blatantly obnoxious as an Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson runs for the Presidency, he is given pretty much a free ride without consideration for his minuscule experience, obscure past, dubious associates, and stunningly bad policies.
Can anyone say with a straight face that somebody who couldn't exploit that indoctrinated racial guilt would have gotten past the early primaries with Obama's massive list of negatives?
We've had explosions of stupidity in the past. Far too many people thought there was no end to the dot.com madness and claimed there was a 'New Economy' but were eventually forced to admit that a business model with little or no net revenues was a loser. We've had an administration that adopted some of its oppositions worst traits and were surprised when this angered the base. We've had a policy of lending large sums of money to persons utterly unable to make good on the transaction, often making those people the hardest hit when the bad loans inevitably lead to economic collapse. This was done in the belief it was helping people who'd been wrongly denied and making us all better as a result. In real life, making more poor people doesn't make the already poor better off.
Steve wants to know how those of us will explain not voting for Obama to our grandchildren. Any grandchild of mine who still asks that question when it reaches voting age is out of the will. Rather than feel compelled to defend my choice, I'll ask how the people who brought the likes of Stalin, Mao, Castro, Khomeini, and someday Hugo Chavez to power explained it to their grandchildren.
Posted by: epobirs | November 07, 2008 at 12:06 AM
What an unfortunately all-too-typical jackass, this guy Steve.
It is a sad thing that sometimes something really dumb must be done before a person can move on with their life. (Jasper Fforde has a hilarious take on this in his Thursday Next series, where the UK is on the verge of entering a disastrous war because it been accumulating unexpressed stupidity for so long it threaten to burst forth all at once.) A writer of my acquaintance once published an embarrassingly bad novel that still attracted a large readership based on his past greatness. When asked, he said he just couldn't get anything else done until he'd gotten that wretched book out of his system.
It appears we've done this on a national scale. Almost since birth, my generation of tail-end boomers has been fed racial guilt by the shovel-load, regardless of whether we showed the slightest inclination to behave badly towards others on the basis of where their ancestors were shaped by local conditions in pre-technological times. We been trained to feel terrible about things to which we were never a party nor any of our ancestors. (The Civil War was decades past when my all of my grandparents or great-grandparents came to America and it's difficult to imagine them acting in any way worse than what they received as Jews.) As a consequence, the first time a melanin-advantaged man who isn't as blatantly obnoxious as an Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson runs for the Presidency, he is given pretty much a free ride without consideration for his minuscule experience, obscure past, dubious associates, and stunningly bad policies.
Can anyone say with a straight face that somebody who couldn't exploit that indoctrinated racial guilt would have gotten past the early primaries with Obama's massive list of negatives?
We've had explosions of stupidity in the past. Far too many people thought there was no end to the dot.com madness and claimed there was a 'New Economy' but were eventually forced to admit that a business model with little or no net revenues was a loser. We've had an administration that adopted some of its oppositions worst traits and were surprised when this angered the base. We've had a policy of lending large sums of money to persons utterly unable to make good on the transaction, often making those people the hardest hit when the bad loans inevitably lead to economic collapse. This was done in the belief it was helping people who'd been wrongly denied and making us all better as a result. In real life, making more poor people doesn't make the already poor better off.
Steve wants to know how those of us will explain not voting for Obama to our grandchildren. Any grandchild of mine who still asks that question when it reaches voting age is out of the will. Rather than feel compelled to defend my choice, I'll ask how the people who brought the likes of Stalin, Mao, Castro, Khomeini, and someday Hugo Chavez to power explained it to their grandchildren.
Posted by: epobirs | November 07, 2008 at 12:09 AM
"This is why I don't use the term "African-American." Unless we're talking about an immigrant from the continent, the term should be discarded."
Interesting. I believe the Pew organization did a study recently that found that the majority, vast majority, of African-Americans in the US considered themselves to be Africans first and Americans second.
This perspective exists in spite of the centuries that many family lines have spent on this continent.
My hope is that the Obama presidency will instill some sense of ownership in society for those people who think that way.
I read stuff like this --
http://tinyurl.com/5rfko8
...and I weep for the ignorance of our young people and future generations.
Posted by: kal | November 07, 2008 at 12:20 AM
One day, 98% of black people will be able to vote for a candidate based on the content of their character, and not on the color of their skin.
I'm pretty sure that's the dream, anyway.
As to Richard, who said: "... and his "change" turns out to be more radical than even you Bush haters can stomach" I would offer this observation:
Obama won't be bringing much change at all; firstly because he's now in charge of the long-term strategic interests of the United States of America and he's sworn to uphold and protect our Constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic.
Secondly, what gets you elected isn't what keeps you elected. At any moment, Obama can be removed from power by the American people, and he knows it. Obama and the Democrats are now AGAINST Change; because Change would force them out of power.
Posted by: mlk | November 07, 2008 at 12:48 AM
There were conservative policies governing this country for the last eight years, Steve?
I've been a conservative my whole voting life so I'm pretty sure I would have recognized any such policies.
But we'll be back.
Great stuff.
Posted by: Stephen Kruiser | November 07, 2008 at 01:07 AM
Baldi -
I found that the most effective response to folks with steve's point of view is to just point out to them that my vote was cast following Martin's dream - that we should all be judged by the content of our character rather than the color of our skin.
Then I point out that the man's words remind me of Jimmy Carter on steroids. That usually resonates pretty well with people over 30-35.
And usually ends the discussion, without any recriminations - so far.
Posted by: Wind Rider | November 07, 2008 at 02:13 AM
Baldilocks, your post here has given me some comfort in an otherwise sad time for me.
I'm a white man engaged to a black Haitian women. She's been a republican leaning, Bush supporter for the whole six years I've known her. Several years ago at a Christmas party she tore to shreds a guy spouting off the usual "Bush lied, people died" crap. And yet, she voted for Obama.
At first she tried to justify it based on the last couple of years, but she knew what I told her was true - she was voting for Obama because he was a black man. When this was finally out in the open I got the following as her true reason for voting for Obama - I'm going to put it in quotes even though I'm just paraphrasing:
"White men rule the world. They're the most powerful people on the planet and have been for a long time. There's a sense that they can do anything and that everyone else is lesser by comparison. And it's not just black people that feel this. Now there's a chance for a black man to become the most powerful man in the world and it's spiritually healing. No matter how bad you think he'll be, he isn't going to ruin the United States, but the mere fact that he gets elected is going to make a lot of people feel better about themselves."
I understood - still didn't like her reason - but I understood. I truly wish I could have explained to her how wrong I felt that was, the same way you did in your last few paragraphs.
Anyway, I think I've read you before from Instapundit, but I came here from Ace's site tonight and now you're getting bookmarked.
Posted by: Allen | November 07, 2008 at 02:18 AM
I'm just starting a new blog under the URL listed above---I posted my reaction to the elections on my husband's blog at http://www.thebrewdogblog.com under "Mrs. Brew." (There are 2 posts relative to the election under my name.)
Your eloquence and courage are breathtaking. Thank you. I hope you'll read what I have written, and that you'll join me in building a new, true grass roots effort to redefine and revive Conservative America. I have been reaching out to like-minded people in the DC area, including a few of the more forward-thinking politicians, to try to get this thing going. My vision is laid out in my post.
Liberals have actually disagreed with my assertion that our elected representatives should represent us, and that we have to be educated on the issues and vocal about our opinions. We've made the Big Brother jokes, but it's only 2 days after the election, and I'm being told that it's "not cool" to say that? That is utterly appalling to me.
Obviously, this is intended as a way to reach out to you as opposed to a comment I would expect you to post. I would love to exchange ideas with you outside our blogs.
I promise that I'm not a crazy, and I'm generally more articulate but I'm on 4 hours sleep with a raging headache!
I hope to hear from you soon. I had never heard of you until I picked up a link on Ace a little while ago, so I don't know much about you, but I know that I would like to.
Thanks for your consideration,
Karen Mason
Posted by: Karen | November 07, 2008 at 02:29 AM
I'm old, white ugly and a 23 year veteran. Came across you site by accident, think your comments wonderful and I hope more reflective of Black Americans than what I've seen and heard at Obama rallies. Unforftunately, the Democratic party wont let good Black leadership, such as Barbra Jorden in her day, get ahead. Instead it brings us the hacks like Waters of Ca. and the crooks like Jefferson of La. But it serves the purpose of maintaining a "dependant" voting block.
Posted by: thomas Poole | November 07, 2008 at 02:39 AM
I wandered over here from somewhere else. You have an interesting site. Dymphna has an insightful comment. Thanks.
The election of Obama is worrisome to me on many levels. I look at many things that happened during this election and there is no way that I can say that the election of Obama was a good thing for America. All it proves is that racism can take many forms. If we want to move beyond racism, we must learn to look at people as individuals.
Posted by: Harry | November 07, 2008 at 02:59 AM
I wish people like uptownsteve would explain to me how in the world the last 8 years were failed conservative policies. Other than maybe, kinda defense there wasn't a blessed conservative thing going on in the White House.
Running from a center-left to radical left gov. makes a whole lot of sense!
baldi, you kicked his ass!
Posted by: downtownchris | November 07, 2008 at 03:11 AM
Baldilocks,
first time poster here. Let me say that this old white guy would NEVER be laughing at you. For one thing, I'm afraid you'd track me down and whip my butt. For another, if you hadn't said anything humorous, there'd be no reason to laugh, anyway. And then, it would be at what you said, not you that I'd be laughing at.
Interesting that Dymphna mentioned SW VA (where I live). One would think that overt or covert racism would be a bit more prevalent here than elsewhere. As far as I can see, it isn't. About twelve years ago, here in the small town where I live, we elected a Black sheriff. The man will have the job as long as he wants it, because we'll keep electing him. Why? Racial guilt? Nope. The fact that he's a good man, and is good at what he does is why he's there, and why he'll stay there.
Posted by: brinster | November 07, 2008 at 03:31 AM
Baldi:
Wow. What a breath of fresh air. The left are perpetually angry and never satisfied, even in victory. I find that the one thing I cannot stand above all is their utter hypocrisy.
Liberals are supposed to be the movement of inclusion and diversity; freedom of expression and differing viewpoints - EXCEPT if you are a conservative. Then your views are hate speech.
The party and campaign that was post racial. No comment needed.
Speaking of voting along tribal lines, as a Jew it amazes me that my co-religionists vote solid Democrat and have blindly done so for over 60 years. Ironic since Jews are lumped together as Neo cons, controlling the media and the government strings and the world economy and so on and so forth.
Ugh. I am disgusted and dreading what's to come. But more than ever, I want to know what we can do to return from the wilderness and save this nation from itself.
Hey, if you are in NYC, some of the folks who blog on Ace may be getting together this evening for meet up somewhere in town. Not sure if I can come, because of work, but will try and make it.
Will now link to your inspirational "pearls"
Posted by: J.J. Sefton | November 07, 2008 at 03:34 AM
Bravo, Baldilocks! I enjoyed that.
I took MLK's speech seriously all those years ago and decided against Obama for the same reasons you did, I don't agree with his policies and positions as evidenced by his voting record, and I think he's tied himself in knots over Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers.
That he is the son of a black father and white mother is the luck of the draw and was not a factor in my decision, no more than Hillary's gender would have been if she'd been the nominee.
Thank you, and your commenters, for one of the most articulate threads I've read on the policy v pigment argument.
Posted by: Retread | November 07, 2008 at 04:18 AM
I applaud your answer to uptownsteve but I can condense it even further for you:
"My vote was determined precisely by the methodology suggested by Martin Luther King, Jr."
100% true and irrefutable.
Posted by: Natalie | November 07, 2008 at 04:41 AM
And uptownsteve, because I'm sure you're reading this (your tone indicates you WANTED to get banned so, congratulations, that's two successful operations you've been a part of this week), I'll take your challenge.
Bush is a strictly centrist Republican, or maybe right of center who adopted liberal tendencies because of political advice. Or maybe he's truly less partisan than anyone else in memory.
For whatever reason, he chose to reach across the aisle on a regular basis, and each time it cost him. No Child Left Behind, with Teddy Kennedy - no credit from liberals and unpopular with the Conservative base. Ditto immigration reform. Each time he reached across the aisle and endorsed big-government programs, he got no credit from you and lost credit from Conservatives.
I'm not thinking Rove to be the genius that everyone thinks.
Posted by: Patrick | November 07, 2008 at 05:13 AM
Uptownsteve's been sipping the Kool-Aid through swirly straws. His cmment are not only disingenuous and myopic, but irresponsible. To blame President Bush for everything that ails this country while we've had the absolute worst congress ever, led by Democrats, for the past two years is absurd at best.
Great post, Julliette.
Posted by: Val Prieto | November 07, 2008 at 05:47 AM
Just a great post! I am so happy to read that I am not the only person not consumed with the race of the candidate. New fan here, I hope to return often.
Posted by: Marty | November 07, 2008 at 05:48 AM
Nice dismantling of a typical ill-informed Obamaton. It's disturbing that so many people acknowledged Obama's obvious shortcomings in experience, character judgment and political philosophy, and just didn't care.
It also shows that Obama was incredibly successful with his message of "change" and the corollary (but very false) message that McCain was just a continuation of Bush.
Posted by: Eric | November 07, 2008 at 05:52 AM
Steve was making the error of conflating your decision with that of the electorate as a whole. Other people may take the same information and come to a different conclusion. What you explained quite well was why YOU came to a decision and how you could stand by that decision. Whether or not the majority of voters agreed was irrelevant.
His ranting about the last eight years was unrelated.
Posted by: The Opinionator | November 07, 2008 at 05:57 AM
What I am unable to comprehend is this slovenly devotion by these people that Obama is going to truly solve all life problems?
Obama is going to "change" America and "heal our souls" now, but his past has shown that the only thing Obama has ever used his supposed superior "intelligence" and "skills" to do is promote Barack Obama?? His district in Chicago has not improved an inch economically, educationally and financially during the six years he represented them in the state senate and certainly not in the three years in Congress. Obama has had extraordinary opportunities such as when he was appointed to lead the Annanberg Challenge without any experience and he failed miserably.
Given an incredible opportunity to help improve the education of Chicago's children by directing the use of 155 million dollars of other people's money, instead of utilizing this stash of money to develop programs in math, science and technology which would have helped our children compete in the world to improve their lives, Obama held meeting, paid for studies and ultimately funneled the money to numerous radical far-left groups who wanted to use education to increase their power. The groups own auditors deemed Obama leadership as a complete failure and a huge amount of the money's use was not accounted for.
I suspect that this will be representative of Obama's presidency. He will fund tons of studies\meetings\networks which will increase the political structure of the leftist but will not provide real value to our country.
Posted by: LogicalUS | November 07, 2008 at 06:08 AM
I'm a typical stupid leftist who doesn't learn from experience and who refuses to listen. I would rather throw a temper tantrum like a child when another person refuses to allow my spewings on that person's property. I am the cyber equivalent of a burglar.
I will also forget that, the next time I try to post, the hostess will alter my comments--just like she has this time--and then publish them.
Posted by: uptownsteve | November 07, 2008 at 06:12 AM
Whammy! You've been bookmarked.
Posted by: smihut | November 07, 2008 at 06:33 AM
Baldi,
I don't laugh at you. In fact, I find almost everything you write about interesting and thoughtful. Had you made the opposite decision and voted for Obama, I would understand it but I wouldn't respect you as I do now. And it is you that has to look that person in the mirror each morning. Not some stupid hack on a blog who delights in calling a thoughtful and moral decision a "bottom dwelling hustler". Stay strong, as I know you always have and always will.
Posted by: Sue | November 07, 2008 at 06:40 AM
Juliette,
I've been following you for some years, off and on, and have always liked your opinions. Moreover, you have my admiration because it has to be aggravating sometimes when people consider you to be a race traitor because you use your head instead of your ethnicity to determine your actions.
I feel that there is an extremely good chance that Obama will set race relations back a LONG way. He won strictly due to tribalism on the part of ethnic minorities. They're now revelling in it. I'm sure lots of them are thinking it's payback time and are looking forward to it.
That attitude, and the actions it will engender, will cause a backlash that will make whites who might have wanted to be nonracial realize that all nonracialism got them was reverse discrimination.
That doesn't even begin to include what will probably be an even worse position for whites as the victims of increased interracial crime. When those white liberal minds change, and the door of racial tolerance closes, it's probably closed for good.
The Republican Party has been tagged, for good or ill, as the "white party." When whites start to realize that equality lasted for about 30 seconds before they became the despised and victimized, there will be a lot of former libs who will become solid Republicans out of self defense.
They'll probably be even more angry about the situation than the long-term Republicans because they'll be so bitter about the way they were betrayed, used and taken advantage of. Let me add here that the MSM is going to pay a heavy price for their partisanship in this election's failure to investigate Obama.
I wish it wasn't going to be this way but human nature is awfully hard to change. My prediction is that racism comes back into fashion and that Barack Obama is the most hated president in American history in less than two years. If it doesn't come to more than local gunfights we'll be lucky.
Hang in there, young woman. You're going to see some pretty ugly things soon and there will be an even greater need for some rational black voices.
Good luck, and may God bless us all.
Posted by: mac | November 07, 2008 at 06:41 AM
Excellent post Ma'am...
I am distressed by all of the racial factors surrounding this election; because as a both a conservative, and a member of the group of court ordered school integration in the 60's and 70's, I actually bought into and believe in Dr. King's call for a color blind society based solely on merit. And, while I understand the reactionary nature of folks voting for Mr. Obama based on his race or their conviction that he would somehow be a transformative agent in our society, I also find that to be a bit of a myopic outlook; much like the single issue voters that accept or reject candidates over their stance on abortion, immigration, etc...
It seems to me that in their zeal to elect him, a large number of Mr. Obama's supporters have chosen to overlook his stance on issues, both social and political, as well as other aspects, actions, and associations that speak to his character. Perhaps it is a willfull blindness, but I am concerned that there is a very large component of ideological indoctrination and moral relativism involved; all courtesy of our public school system...
The left often hand wrings over the academic performance of our children as well as the need for ever greater funding for our school systems. Unfortunately, this money often goes to increasing teacher salaries-regardless of their performance-and never actually gets used in a truly beneficial way for the kids. Perhaps if they focused on educating our children, instead of indoctrinating them, we would see much better results. Indeed, lost in the whole Ayers controversy, which was sufficiently defended and obfuscated by the MSM, was the miserable failure he and Obama took part in through the CAC; this was really the most disturbing aspect of Mr. Obama association with that "washed up terrorist"...
Mr. Obama will be our next President, and as a member of the loyal opposition I will support or oppose his endeavours based on what I percieve to be their value to the saftey, health, integrity, and prosperity of our beloved nation. I will not engage in vile, personal, and baseless rancor in an attempt to diminish him, like the left and the MSM has mercilessly done to Mr. Bush for the past 8 years. And, while I can appreciate the way his Presidency may help many black folks, who were still bitter about the great injustices of the past and their percieved continuence into the present, actually buy into American ideals, I will not stand idly by and give him a pass on the issues.
Thanks again for the excellent post, as well as the deft dressing down of a Kos style "hater". I'll bookmark your site for future reading enjoyment.
Best Wishes,
Bob
Posted by: Bob Reed | November 07, 2008 at 07:03 AM
The thing I fear we'll see next is, unfortunately, easy to predict: Seeing the margins and the pass the MSM gave Barack, we're now going to begin a war of who can one-up each other in the identity sphere without regard to qualifications. I fully expect to now see the Republicans search for a black woman, or a latino, a gay, whatever, to face down Dems. But not to look for adherence to principle.
Posted by: urthshu | November 07, 2008 at 07:06 AM
"Because if a candidate’s political, social and moral values are an anathema to a given voter but that voter chooses that candidate anyway solely because the voter shares race/ethnicity with the candidate and/or because of historical precedent, that voter has exchanged principle for emotion and for carnality. The voter has exchanged political, moral and spiritual values for pride of tribe (blacks) or to assuage tribal guilt (whites).
And that, good sir, is the very illustration of a selling-out. "
Baldilocks, replace the word "race" above with "party" and you have exemplified yet another key to this election cycle. Much of what you wrote about voting based upon principles, not race, can be applied to the folks who had a hard time voting for McCain because of his liberal policies. Thankfully, Palin brought in millions of voters who supported the ticket, who otherwise, in good conscience, could NOT have. I was one of those voters.
The Republicans need to remember this about their conservative base - it's about bedrock principles, not the (R) after their name, that inspires people to vote. Just as I would never vote for someone based solely upon the color of their skin, so will I never vote for someone based solely upon their party affiliation. I will always examine their core principles and judge whether they match mine. The Republican Party, in its orgy of corruption, liberalism, and spending, has forgotten that their conservative base values morals and principles over Party. If the Republicans can remember that, and return to the principles that guided our Forefathers, they will earn the trust and votes of middle America once again.
Posted by: Redhead Infidel | November 07, 2008 at 07:07 AM
The only thing I was worried about with the election is Voter Fraud. I'm still not happy with how it's being handled, but I'm not going to be running around shouting "Obama stole the election!"
Anticipate the next four years.
Marxist philosophies. It's time to read up on them. You'll need to be ready to educate as they get implemented.
Don't be an Uptownsteve. Even if you know you're right, you need to listen and talk to people. You may never get around to the point you're trying to make, but people stop listening to you when you become a lecturer.
Posted by: ErikZ | November 07, 2008 at 07:10 AM
"If you or any of your buddies can make an intelligent argument for the continuance of the conservative policies that this country has been subjected to for the last 8 years...then I'll leave your board permanently."
A bit late for that, I know. But since nobody was arguing for that, I'll defend Baldi's argument: as bad as McCain was, Obama is WORSE. So McCain being bad does not make Obama any better.
Remember, Republicans: you could have had Ron Paul.
Posted by: Jeffrey Quick | November 07, 2008 at 07:20 AM
See? I never learn.
And the great thing about altering my comment is that the hostess doesn't even have to read them. She can just Select All, then start typing.
I should take my medication now. This bi-polar thing is a mutha.
Posted by: uptownsteve | November 07, 2008 at 07:39 AM
"...Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces. We are talking about a person whose job it is to support and defend the U.S. Constitution, the American land and the American people."
Michelle Obama just told the Times of London in an interview that Barack ran for President so he could "help families".
The President elect apparently doesn't understand The Job as defined by the US Constitution.
Posted by: tanstaafl | November 07, 2008 at 07:52 AM
baldilocks sez: Okay, I just had to post these words because they're so stupid
You ever thought about getting a perm?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
baldilocks sez: Why would I get a perm when I have my head shaved every week and a half?
Observers, I just wanted to point out the insanity.
Posted by: uptownsteve | November 07, 2008 at 07:53 AM
Steve,
I'm just going to delete your posts from my trash bin from now on. Run along and try to behave like a winner, if you can. Wear a helmet, if necessary.
Posted by: baldilocks | November 07, 2008 at 08:23 AM
Baldilocks, you clearly don't need my affirmation, but you've got it anyway; your elevation of principle over primitivity is exactly what I hope to teach my kids. Came here from Ace, but now you're getting bookmarked.
And, for the road, just a touch of irony from ol' uptownsteve - "Obama's message of change and redirection from the corruption, incompetence, bellicosity and cronyism of the Bush Administration" - redirecting, presumably, toward the *Daley* Administration's corruption, incompetence, bellicosity and cronyism...
Posted by: kj | November 07, 2008 at 08:42 AM
stopped in as the occasional lurker from Ace..
good post..
Posted by: Dave C | November 07, 2008 at 09:20 AM
Great job, Baldilocks.
Although I am of European heritage (back when Europe was worth a damn), I'm 5th generation Californian. My wife's family came over on the boat after the Mayflower. We're not 'white' or 'caucasian', however; we are Americans. When our children were born, the birth certificate folks tried to put down 'caucasian'. I demanded that they write in 'American'.
And so they did.
I was raised to believe that it is indeed about the content of a person's character, and not the color of their skin.
Or their gender.
Or religion.
Etc.
Our children are being raised the same way.
Unfortunately in this election, it became a race thing.
Wednesday people were popping corks and buying up all the newspapers, so that they could say "I was there" and "I voted to elect the first African American President".
One more chit in the Bank of I'm Better Than You.
Baldilocks, you couldn't have put it any better in your post.
uptownsteve and his lemming friends are bound to drag the rest of us off the cliff with them.
Posted by: Uncle Jefe | November 07, 2008 at 09:51 AM
Baldilocks,
BRAVO!
You presented 'steve' with concise, point-by-point reasons as to why we reject Obama,his nihilist background,history,and associates.
Par for the moonbat course, stevie could only respond with "uncle tom" style pejoratives.
I'm sure he'll be lurking back here just to read the comments so I'll address this to him:
Newsflash: It ain't his skin color, it's his Socialist agenda.
Posted by: sfcmac | November 07, 2008 at 09:58 AM
No, don't delete steve's comments. I love your channeling his inner thoughts. Priceless!
Posted by: Patrick | November 07, 2008 at 10:05 AM
Juliette? - You'll never convince anyone who's reality is faith-based, that they're wrong, and why they're wrong with rational arguments ...and most especially when they don't have a clue as to their even having a faith (and would deny it if they could finally figure out what that even means).
...I learned a long time ago, while sitting in the pews, that it was at least better to be able to acknowledge you were listening to a sermon, than it was to be so clueless as to not understand that - not only were you oblivious to the fact that you were sitting in the church, but that - you were also actually singing in the choir.
Uptownsteve is one of the secular faithful. He doesn't understand his religion and faith, and wouldn't be able to acknowledge if he understood what I'd just said. To him, it's just truth. Beautiful truth. And people who reject his truth aren't just stupid, they're evil.
...and you're an ignorant moron at best if you can't acknowledge that truth.
(Well played, downtownsteve: it's awfully hard to artfully portray blindness to such a successful extent.)
And you are, as you've been since I first linked to you a few years back, and remain: honorable, intelligent, rational and entirely clued-in.
Kudos.
I have a little story to tell, too. About my foster son. (Who's now an assistant pastor, working on his Master's degree in business ...and a brilliant musician, I'd add.) That seems relevant to the issue of racism.
Josh came to us from Ethiopia at 12 (through our church: his father, our friend now, was -and is - titular head of a large Pentecostal movement in that country, and feared for his youngest son's life ...most of his children had been placed in families in the US for their safety, and Josh was the youngest and last placed into a protective home).
One day we were walking down the street of our small Northcoast town of an evening, and two white kids - barely past puberty - came bicycling by and one of 'em shouted out "Spearchucker". And sped up, laughing.
I was fricking ENRAGED; and my wife was *pissed* ...they were going too fast to take out after them (and I started, old and out-of-shape that I was, even then).
But ...we almost immediately noticed that Josh ...hadn't noticed. Not really ...not like we had at least (we're white btw).
I mean, he just really didn't relate (he'd heard: couldn't help but to hear) to that shout as any kind of an insult, let alone it being a racist smear.
After awhile, we (my wife and I) "got it" (we all talked about it). Josh hadn't been raised to think being black was anything but normal. Of course he didn't (or couldn't): his earlier formative years were all in Addis Ababa.
So the shouted insult hadn't touched him, because he didn't feel any different where he was, or who he was then, than he ever had.
What he felt was ...a part.
As in: he was a part of the family (two families), he was a part of the church, he was a part of the community, he was a part of ...everything. He was Josh.
He wasn't apart. He was Josh.
Not Josh the ???
Just Josh.
(Well, "Josh" because Joshua is easier to say than Eyasu ...let alone his last name, which was really a stem-winder.)
So Josh didn't learn a lesson about racism that day. (He never had any lessons to learn, obviously, in reflection.)
But my wife and I did. Oh yes we did. And MLK smiled.
Just sayin'.
Posted by: davis,br | November 07, 2008 at 10:48 AM
I could just kiss you Juliette, well done and thank you. Sadly, for too many, the lesson will not be learned or even remotely understood. They don't ask because they want an answer, they ask to shame you, to attack you, and to feel superior and important. When they get an answer, they ignore it except for a few words they can repeat in their predetermined viewpoint.
They don't want a discussion. They want confirmation of their presuppositions and punishment of those who disagree.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor | November 07, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Well done, madam, well done indeed.
Poor, poor, steve. All he had to do to see if conservatives were laughing at you was take a quick tour of the right leaning blogs. Ace of Spades, Instapundit, Cold Fury, etc, have all found you to be quite enlightening at one time or another.
What would that have taken? Five minutes? And yet that was too high a price to pay for the truth.
Poor, poor steve.
Posted by: Randy Rager | November 07, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Wow. Great discussion. I think I've stumbled on your blog before, but I'll be back on a regular basis now. It helps me to get your perspective. Thanks.
Posted by: suburban scarecrow | November 07, 2008 at 01:14 PM
I don't think anyone is going to have to explain NOT voting for Obama any more than they will have to explain NOT voting for Carter. If Obama re-institutes involuntary servitude as he is threatening to do with his community service programs then the only question anyone will be asking is .... Why didn't you get out when you saw things falling apart Grandma?
Believe me, that is a much harder question to answer than why you didn't base your decision on someone's tribal affiliation. Heck the latter question answers itself for anyone who isn't a racist.
Posted by: Ben Franklin | November 07, 2008 at 01:55 PM
As usual B, your sagacity and patience astounds me. Well said!
Posted by: caltechgirl | November 07, 2008 at 03:49 PM
What a great response!
Posted by: Karen | November 07, 2008 at 03:57 PM
Once they're off this board they laugh at you.
Hopefully one day you'll figure that out.
No, Juliette, we surely don't. Although I am laughing right now at the way you kicked his ass to the curb.
Posted by: PeggyU | November 07, 2008 at 07:00 PM
I will make a small defense of Steve:
As much as they are discernable, Steve probably agrees with O's policies. I believe he would have voted for O regardless of O's skin color.
And, I sympathize with his disenchantment with R's rule the last 8 years (though I would disagree with the bill of particulars).
BUT, Steve has no right to force you into his ghetto; and, you need not feel shame for voting against the O.
Posted by: mockmook | November 07, 2008 at 09:01 PM
Wow! don't have time to read this all in detail just yet... but the question's answer is obvious, isn't it? Too bad "Steve" couldn't see his nose before his face.
One tells them, "character before skin tone," followed closely by "the idea is not to vote for ANY person because they are your color, but to vote for the right one."
Sheesh. They'll let anyone vote in this country... ;o/
Posted by: Wry Mouth | November 07, 2008 at 09:48 PM
P.S. ErikZ, didn't I hear the catch phrase, "Don't be an Uptownsteve!" on an AM radio PSA this weekend?
Posted by: Wry Mouth | November 07, 2008 at 09:51 PM
Baldilocks:
I see that you have had all that you can stand from "WhiteBowieStevie". You have to understand how he thinks though.
He is going to take it as a badge of honor that now 2 "Black Conservative females" have banned him from their blogs.
Now keep in mind that when it comes to "Black Respect" - he did not feel it when he chose to call you a "Ho". Of course if a "Protected Black female" was called as such - Steve would be leading the charge against them.
Regarding why I didn't vote for "the first Black president" (I did not register a vote for anyone in that position) - I chose to vote NO CONFIDENCE for the party that dominates:
* Baltimore
* Washington DC
* Philly
* Milwaukee
* Buffalo
* Newark
* Camden
* St Louis
* Chicago
* Cleveland
* Akron
* Columbus, OH
and so many, many other places where the suffering Black folks that Steve always points to are seeking CHANGE.
You see incumbent upon the antics of a "Black Quasi-Socialist Progress-Fundamentalist Racism-Chaser" like Steve is that they look past the "Local Democrats" that are failing them and find the "National Republicans" that they can target. It is quite perverted to see how despite the record amount of turf that the Democrats control over our people based on their voting choices - the overwhelming condemnation is of the "external Republicans".
Barack Obama is apart of the very same machine that has been failing our community. Why would I choose to affirm the job that they are doing?
(Note Steve lives in Bowie MD - which is an island within the utopia called Prince Georges County - rather than an area where he would have to come fact to face with his ideology)
Posted by: Constructive Feedback | November 08, 2008 at 04:48 PM
People, in every election before 2008, black people have voted 99% for white candidates, so it is foolish to continue to try to make the point that voting for Obama was strictly about race. For me, it was about youth and temperament; Advantage, Obama. If the republicans had nominated Huckabee, Obama would have had a run for my vote.
Also, I voted No on Prop 8, while 70% of blacks voted yes. Suggesting that blacks cannot think independently just because a lot of use chose one candidate over the other is pure non-sense.
Posted by: GusB | November 08, 2008 at 06:19 PM
"People, in every election before 2008, black people have voted 99% for white candidates, so it is foolish to continue to try to make the point that voting for Obama was strictly about race."
In order for your statement to make sense, there would have to have been another instance in which a major Party's black nominee for president was running against the other major Party's white nominee for president. IOW there would have to be a similar instance to compare. But of course this has never happened before this year. You're comparing dissimilar events.
"Also, I voted No on Prop 8, while 70% of blacks voted yes. Suggesting that blacks cannot think independently just because a lot of use chose one candidate over the other is pure non-sense."
You and I both know that most blacks are religious--mostly Christian or Muslim--and will not vote for same-sex marriage on those principles. Voting for someone because she is your same race might not be desirable, but it doesn't go against any religious principle that I know of. Voting for same-sex marriage definitely goes against Christian religious principle (see Romans 1).
And even among those blacks who are not religious, there is not that much tolerance for homosexuality period, much less marriage between those of the same sex, so lets not pretend that things are otherwise.
Posted by: baldilocks | November 08, 2008 at 08:27 PM
There have been other black primary candidates, and they did not receive broad support of black voters, so the never sniffed the nomination. Barack would not have gotten so much support if his blackness were his primary selling point.
His candidacy was a break from what we have come to expect from presidential campaigns, and that was his appeal. Vague ideas trumped negative attack campaigning. The republicans would do well to take notes.
Posted by: GusB | November 09, 2008 at 06:40 AM
[quote]People, in every election before 2008, black people have voted 99% for white candidates, so it is foolish to continue to try to make the point that voting for Obama was strictly about race. For me, it was about youth and temperament;[/quote]
GusB:
I am working on a project to rationalize as much as possible about why our people do what we do politically, economically, socially.
I acknowledge that for the average Black person facing a political decision they ask the question "Between the Republican and Democrat before me - which of these two are most in line with my views?"
The map of where Black people live in the highest concentrations shows the aggregate results of our beliefs:
http://withintheblackcommunity.blogspot.com/2008/10/demographic-research-on-black-america.html
The large circles represent the proportional representation of where Black folks live. You'll also notice that these are cities and these cities are dominated by Democrats.
Yet these are also places where Black Unemployment rates are at Depression Rates:
http://withintheblackcommunity.blogspot.com/2008/10/plotting-out-black-unemployment-rates.html
I will continue with my research, GusB, but I need to begin to challenge you and others with my summation in which there is a difference between: WHAT YOU POPULARLY ASSUME to be "in your Best Interests" versus that which has actually BEEN ABLE TO EXPRESS YOUR BEST INTERESTS.
When the Democrats become "Da Man" and yet your conditions continue to atrophy - how do you continue your FIGHT for justice, jobs and educational resources...when you have placed the power structure that is in power in place?
YOU DON'T FIGHT AGAINST THEM....you instead develop a "Mission From God"!!!
You get the masses of people who are being FAILED locally to drive their grievances into a NATIONAL campaign for economic realignment. Any non-Progressive interested in reading the blueprints of what is being orchestrated upon the Black community should start reading "International Socialist Review" magazine. The entire scheme is laid out before you.
The Black community is being used.
Rather than demanding "earnest money", bits of money given along the journey. Instead we are being sold on the "gold at the end of the rainbow" with eroding communities as we go along.
Posted by: Constructive Feedback | November 09, 2008 at 06:47 AM
Negative Campaigning you say GusB?
As I recall - during the "Black General Election"....known to others as the "Democratic Primary" - when Obama was losing ground as Hillary gained momentum - Obama did indeed "go negative".
[quote]There have been other black primary candidates, and they did not receive broad support of black voters, so the never sniffed the nomination.[/quote]
GusB - you are correct. For Black folks Ideology and Race are dueling forces for the top billing as the main motivating factor.
Again -as part of my study on my own people I am making note of all of the "Black Flight Progressives" who are departing the tranquility of the "Progressive Bastions" that they have taken over after the "last conservative" has departed. Upon coming face to face with the community that they have built....they MOVE to live next door to the conservative antagonist that they so despise ideologically.
With Black folks, GusB, the remaining punishment and ostracism for "voting conservative" means that many of us move into areas where our VALUES are addressed yet continue to vote for policies that look strangely like the communities that we have departed.
One subtext of this is the desire to believe in one's mind that they have never "denied opportunity to anyone" by voting conservatively. The problem is, GusB - the are showing their real selves in their migration preferences.
In Atlanta we are seening "Black Flight 2.0" where many of the Blacks who moved to the immediate ring cities are now moving further out into the conservative suburbs to take advantage of the schools and public safety that they offer. What few people will admit is that 15 years ago Redan High School and Stephenson High in Dekalb, for example were top performing schools. Today they have many of the very same problems that any "urban school district" has.
The key problem that this speaks of (which I am also focused upon) is that these "intellectually astute Progressives" know what they want in a community but don't know how to EXPRESS IT by holding their ground in regards to the POLICIES that they support. The risk of "suppressing" someone else is too big of a risk. Thus THEY MOVE!!
Now we see a corresponding demand by Black Activists: "Come back home you Black Professional and Managerial classes.....the ghetto needs you!". This is nothing more than an identification of the problems that are created by Progressive ideology in which there must be a perpetual enemy and he must reside OUTSIDE of the community. Progressivism is not ORGANIC and thus when it comes time to putting the foot down and managing the behavior and priorities of all who live within a town - having them to maintain their consciousness of their COMMON INTERESTS....the social libertine orientation of Progressivism shows its weaknesses when required to build a group of people UP TO a certain standard as opposed to its normal forte - that of redistributing resources so that the people might be made whole.
What happens when the entire nation tips to PROGRESSIVENESS? Where will you run to then?
Posted by: Constructive Feedback | November 09, 2008 at 07:03 AM
On the question of negative campaigning, Obama was basically a counterpuncher. The majority of voters recognized it and appreciated it, based on the results.
I doubt you'll take my word for it, but let's just see how it goes on future presidential elections. I'm willing to bet that ideas will trump negative attacks going forward.
Posted by: GusB | November 09, 2008 at 07:11 AM
[quote]On the question of negative campaigning, Obama was basically a counterpuncher. The majority of voters recognized it and appreciated it, based on the results.[/quote]
GusB:
NO SIR!
Obama went on the offensive with negative ads when the tide swung and he began losing states during the middle portion of the race. What causes your amnesia?
Lastly - you say:
[quote]but let's just see how it goes on future presidential elections. I'm willing to bet that ideas will trump negative attacks going forward.[/quote]
Again I make note that DESPITE the traction that the Progressive are getting as their base moves outside of the core urban cities into the conservative suburbs - their "POSITIVE" words (I will yield to your claims just for the sake of argument) STILL have not addressed the key issues that many of these core communities face.
I just blogged about the sight of my high school alma mater. Despite being in a solid progressive working class Democratic area and a line wrapping around the corner to vote for Obama - the school, the community, the local economy has never been more threatened per the words of my parents who still live there.
At some point the people drinking in the messages of the progressives are going to demand results. Thus far the quest toward income redistribution has been sold as the great elixir.
Posted by: Constructive Feedback | November 09, 2008 at 10:04 AM
If electing a black president was the most important thing for the U.S. to do it could have done so 8 or 12 or 16 years ago. Gen. Colin Powell would have beaten any of the other candidates back then. This country has been ready to elect a black President for a long time.
Voting for Obama didn't bring a change from the policies of President Bush. What brought that change was the Constitution. President Bush will be out of office on Jan. 20, 2009. Anybody who thinks that Sen. McCain would have run the country using the same policies as President Bush is buying into political rhetoric rather than paying attention to actual facts, such as the fact that Sen. McCain voted against his party's position over 20% of the time, the 6th least party-aligned Senator, which you can verify on the Senate's own web site.
Posted by: RonF | November 10, 2008 at 07:47 AM
What we have had with President Bush is the least articulate President in my lifetime, which started at the beginning of President Eisenhower's administration. President-elect Obama is a far greater contrast to that than Sen. McCain is. People will respond to articulation of conservative principles. President Reagan proved that. But conservative ideals were betrayed by the Republican party once it got into power, and a party that betrays it's principles to get and use power deserves to lose.
Posted by: RonF | November 10, 2008 at 07:50 AM
Of course everyone who did not vote for Obama is being considered a racist! Maybe I didn't vote for him because he is not qualified.. maybe I didn't vote for him because of his health plan which is going to increase my premium...maybe I didn't vote for him because he is a elite socialist and wants to tax hard working people and give it to the unemployed! But of course none of that matters to the liberal illuminati? I'm just a racist!
Posted by: mnotaro | November 13, 2008 at 08:35 AM
Race played too much of a part in this election. It wasn't about the color, it was about the skills and ability, which the left-wing illuminati didn't have.
Posted by: Xpressions | November 25, 2008 at 07:11 AM