Thursday, May 01, 2008
The Choice Really is About More than Gender and Race, or at Least it Should Be
The Trouble With Transcending Race Views TheRoot.com: "But the undeniable truth is that black celebrities and politicians are held to ridiculous standards of acceptability. As long as white people are defining those standards, 'transcendent' black leaders will continue to walk a racial tightrope, and everyone is destined to end up disappointed."
This is really not true. What happened to Obama was the realization that a man he called a mentor is actually aligned with a bigot and a racist (in Farakkhan). I don't think of wanting the man who leads the free world to not be aligned with bigots and racists as a "ridiculously" high "standard of acceptability". Nor should anyone. If the races were different in this equation, there would be no question but that the campaign would be over. What America is doing really is giving Obama a pass that would not be extended to a white candidate, male or female, who had such friends.
From the article and from a blog: ""The support of white women made Oprah her billions. While she has every right to vote and campaign for whomever she wants, she stabbed all women in the back. She used her clout against the first viable white woman. Hope she sinks into oblivion. I will never forget.""
Thank you, but I would like to go back to believing that this kind of thought did not happen. I would like to think that people vote on bigger issues, yea or nay, than color and gender. Stabbed all women in the back? What, for thinking beyond her nose? For believing in someone with whom she has been friends for years? For not simply pandering to keep ratings up? The idea that people think this way makes my stomach turn.
Also from the article: "They were supposed to reflect blackness in the way that made white people comfortable, a blackness that lacked any hint of anger, resentment, or dare we say it, "bitterness." They were also supposed to pretend their blackness didn't matter. Oprah could be the black girlfriend who white women felt good about themselves for having, Obama could be the black candidate they felt good for supporting."
This is also simply offensive. White folks don't like Oprah because it makes them feel good about having a "black girlfriend". That's stupid. There have been plenty of black men and women on the air that did not get ratings out of "white guilt". White women watch Oprah because she educates, informs, and entertains. White people were drawn to Obama, not because he "entertained", but rather because he inspired. Marjorie Valbrun should be ashamed of herself for painting all white folks as weak-kneed idiots whose white guilt rivals that of Catholic guilt. Of describing white folks as those that need to be "entertained by blacks" otherwise we vote for a white.
Whatever happened to..."one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today!"? A reminder to Valerie...their blackness is supposed to be forgotten. That was the freakin' dream!
This is really not true. What happened to Obama was the realization that a man he called a mentor is actually aligned with a bigot and a racist (in Farakkhan). I don't think of wanting the man who leads the free world to not be aligned with bigots and racists as a "ridiculously" high "standard of acceptability". Nor should anyone. If the races were different in this equation, there would be no question but that the campaign would be over. What America is doing really is giving Obama a pass that would not be extended to a white candidate, male or female, who had such friends.
From the article and from a blog: ""The support of white women made Oprah her billions. While she has every right to vote and campaign for whomever she wants, she stabbed all women in the back. She used her clout against the first viable white woman. Hope she sinks into oblivion. I will never forget.""
Thank you, but I would like to go back to believing that this kind of thought did not happen. I would like to think that people vote on bigger issues, yea or nay, than color and gender. Stabbed all women in the back? What, for thinking beyond her nose? For believing in someone with whom she has been friends for years? For not simply pandering to keep ratings up? The idea that people think this way makes my stomach turn.
Also from the article: "They were supposed to reflect blackness in the way that made white people comfortable, a blackness that lacked any hint of anger, resentment, or dare we say it, "bitterness." They were also supposed to pretend their blackness didn't matter. Oprah could be the black girlfriend who white women felt good about themselves for having, Obama could be the black candidate they felt good for supporting."
This is also simply offensive. White folks don't like Oprah because it makes them feel good about having a "black girlfriend". That's stupid. There have been plenty of black men and women on the air that did not get ratings out of "white guilt". White women watch Oprah because she educates, informs, and entertains. White people were drawn to Obama, not because he "entertained", but rather because he inspired. Marjorie Valbrun should be ashamed of herself for painting all white folks as weak-kneed idiots whose white guilt rivals that of Catholic guilt. Of describing white folks as those that need to be "entertained by blacks" otherwise we vote for a white.
Whatever happened to..."one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today!"? A reminder to Valerie...their blackness is supposed to be forgotten. That was the freakin' dream!
