ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
Ever notice how some posters on here grow their vocabulary as their argument gets weaker?
Obama Reelection Ad
- Thread starter HornHuskerDad
- Start date
^Satch, I'm waiting to hear from Perham. He's the one who tried to make a distinction between "racist" and "racially targeted" and I'd like to see how he defines the difference (if there is a difference).
HHD
HHD
Go ahead and call it racial targeting--the question still remains: If a white man had "racially targeted" "his people" by starting up a "Whites for fill in the blank" and used white insider phrases terms, how you feel about it and what would you be saying?
It is disingenuous to act as if the press and the public wouldn't be tearing the man apart. Pretending otherwise is when some people on the board lose credibility or the potentially open mind of someone like myself.
It is disingenuous to act as if the press and the public wouldn't be tearing the man apart. Pretending otherwise is when some people on the board lose credibility or the potentially open mind of someone like myself.
No one cares about Italians for Santorum, etc., because Italians are a subset of whiteness and wield a relatively diluted power when they put themselves forward as Italians. They are rightly seen as attempting to rally around a circumscribed set of interests that do not necessarily portend some sort of wider domination.
There would be some hubub about a candidate trying to rally whites as the potential for domination of minority subgroups would be seen as an implicit possibility. At least if you have any sort of sense of history and white power, etc.
Black power has a more nuanced history because, in addition to racist nonsense, there is a broader underpinning to it that involves fighting for equality and access, etc. Those are two different sets of interests, one of which this nation has always punished or marginalized with severity, and the other of which the country has on occasion recognized as laudable, even supportable. Same with Women's rights vs Men's rights, etc.
African Americans are an important voting block for Obama. The Ad is hardly different from a visit to a black community center. Would it be racist of Obama to visit such a place and speak about his version of the Admin's record on and support for black interests? Is the problem that blacks see themselves as having particular interests that are at least in part deeply rooted in their experience as blacks in America?
Blacks, Hispanics, women, gays (I believe) find themselves in a world that labels and circumscribes them. They adopt a certain amount of the logics and socio-cultural practices that are involved with the construct of race. It is hard, if not impossible, not to. They naturally consider themselves to be members of a subgroup of Americans and to share certain interests, though some have multiple self-identifications with subgroups. Blackness is a powerful mark and usually trumps most others for those who wear the mark. Blacks vote liberal because conservatism hasn't been particularly helpful. Whichever party carries that torch gets their vote as a group that share a powerful marker of experience and, therefore, interests. Obama knows they are important to his re-election bid. He is going to target the groups that he feels will support him. Blacks are such a group. If he wants to get their attention, he needs to recognize the group and call them by name. The group identification is based on race. Noting that is not racist, though it is racialized, which is to say connected with race.
There would be some hubub about a candidate trying to rally whites as the potential for domination of minority subgroups would be seen as an implicit possibility. At least if you have any sort of sense of history and white power, etc.
Black power has a more nuanced history because, in addition to racist nonsense, there is a broader underpinning to it that involves fighting for equality and access, etc. Those are two different sets of interests, one of which this nation has always punished or marginalized with severity, and the other of which the country has on occasion recognized as laudable, even supportable. Same with Women's rights vs Men's rights, etc.
African Americans are an important voting block for Obama. The Ad is hardly different from a visit to a black community center. Would it be racist of Obama to visit such a place and speak about his version of the Admin's record on and support for black interests? Is the problem that blacks see themselves as having particular interests that are at least in part deeply rooted in their experience as blacks in America?
Blacks, Hispanics, women, gays (I believe) find themselves in a world that labels and circumscribes them. They adopt a certain amount of the logics and socio-cultural practices that are involved with the construct of race. It is hard, if not impossible, not to. They naturally consider themselves to be members of a subgroup of Americans and to share certain interests, though some have multiple self-identifications with subgroups. Blackness is a powerful mark and usually trumps most others for those who wear the mark. Blacks vote liberal because conservatism hasn't been particularly helpful. Whichever party carries that torch gets their vote as a group that share a powerful marker of experience and, therefore, interests. Obama knows they are important to his re-election bid. He is going to target the groups that he feels will support him. Blacks are such a group. If he wants to get their attention, he needs to recognize the group and call them by name. The group identification is based on race. Noting that is not racist, though it is racialized, which is to say connected with race.
Making a targeted ad is "pandering?" Is creating a resume that highlights different experiences for different job applications pandering or talking differently to the CEO and the technical guru? If this kind of stuff pisses you off, you're going to use up all your adrenalin and die young.
Namewithheld
2,500+ Posts
Buckhorn/Crockett- I don't think most here would argue your points in the way that you are making them. Simply revving up your base is not racist. However, you are both discounting/neglecting what is actually said in the ad.
If you approach a block of voters based soley on their race as BO is doing here, then you must keep the meesage completely positive to avoid the message becoming racist. If BO simply said that his policies and beliefs are better for black people or that he was going to look out for black people, it certainly would be racial but not racist. But that isnt what he did. He directly claims that whoever his opponent is would hurt blacks and hurt whatever progress they have made. if he said poor instead of black, orrich instead of black, or smart instead of black or dumb instaed of black he could skirt the issue. But he didin't. He just said blacks. So the only way his opponents could do what he says they will do, is to say that their (his opponenets) policies are specifically designed to harm blacks. There can be no other interpretation. They hvave to be targeted specifically to harm a particular race. It is a blurred line if this is BO being racist but it is not a blurred line that he is accusing his opponents of being racist. This is the problem with this type of targeting. Once you stop being positive about what you can do and start talking about what will happen if else is in charge, you cross the line.
BO certainly knows this well. This would be the EXACT argument that he and leaders of pther race groups would make if the ad was worded EXACTLY the same but was made by a white candidate. And, I would agree with them.
If you approach a block of voters based soley on their race as BO is doing here, then you must keep the meesage completely positive to avoid the message becoming racist. If BO simply said that his policies and beliefs are better for black people or that he was going to look out for black people, it certainly would be racial but not racist. But that isnt what he did. He directly claims that whoever his opponent is would hurt blacks and hurt whatever progress they have made. if he said poor instead of black, orrich instead of black, or smart instead of black or dumb instaed of black he could skirt the issue. But he didin't. He just said blacks. So the only way his opponents could do what he says they will do, is to say that their (his opponenets) policies are specifically designed to harm blacks. There can be no other interpretation. They hvave to be targeted specifically to harm a particular race. It is a blurred line if this is BO being racist but it is not a blurred line that he is accusing his opponents of being racist. This is the problem with this type of targeting. Once you stop being positive about what you can do and start talking about what will happen if else is in charge, you cross the line.
BO certainly knows this well. This would be the EXACT argument that he and leaders of pther race groups would make if the ad was worded EXACTLY the same but was made by a white candidate. And, I would agree with them.
majorwhiteapples
5,000+ Posts
As far as Burgess goes, Hutchinson or Cornyn, I told them if they voted for TARP, I would vote against them in any primary they ever ran in for the rest of their political careers. I am holding their feet to the fire and will never vote for them in the primaries. If you waiver one time, you will never get my vote in the primary and I will not vote against you in the general but won't go out of my way to vote for you, nor donate any money.
On top of that, the Pork or money that Burgess brings back to our district is so pathetic it is not funny. With a Trillion dollars worth of stimulus money we still have the same I-35 cluster in Lewisville that we have had for 10 years, hell we still have street lights running down the middle of I-35!!!
The stimulus money we got in Denton County, was a new Military Reserve Depot on FM407 right near I-35!!!! What the hell does the military need a new reserve center for? Total waste of tax payer money. Our train project got accelerated, boy is that thing used, I think they just cut the schedule in half as so few people work downtown. They are building old transportation models in the new work at home economy. More stupidity!!!!!
Hutchinson was one of the big backers of that stupid Billion dollar bridge!!!!! She will never be a factor in politics again and I am very happy about that....I am against pork spending and the bridge and that new Military Reserve Center were gross expenditures that were not necessary and I will be holding their feet to the fire on stupid spending!!!
I am now stepping off my soap box....have a nice day!
On top of that, the Pork or money that Burgess brings back to our district is so pathetic it is not funny. With a Trillion dollars worth of stimulus money we still have the same I-35 cluster in Lewisville that we have had for 10 years, hell we still have street lights running down the middle of I-35!!!
The stimulus money we got in Denton County, was a new Military Reserve Depot on FM407 right near I-35!!!! What the hell does the military need a new reserve center for? Total waste of tax payer money. Our train project got accelerated, boy is that thing used, I think they just cut the schedule in half as so few people work downtown. They are building old transportation models in the new work at home economy. More stupidity!!!!!
Hutchinson was one of the big backers of that stupid Billion dollar bridge!!!!! She will never be a factor in politics again and I am very happy about that....I am against pork spending and the bridge and that new Military Reserve Center were gross expenditures that were not necessary and I will be holding their feet to the fire on stupid spending!!!
I am now stepping off my soap box....have a nice day!
majorwhiteapples
5,000+ Posts
I appreciate your insight, Buckhorn.
I probably didn't understand most of it as I, well I just am not that smart!!!
I look at the President of the United States as an American above all, when I see him address a race or group specifically and saying that his opponent would not do as much as he would or their lot in life would be worse if it was not for him, that is very disappointing. I expect more from the President of the United States.
I would feel the same if John F. Kennedy was sitting there with his feet on the desk and bottle of Jamison in his hands singing Danny Boy with a tear coming down his cheek, saying I will be the only one that will go to bat for you paddies...
Anyway, I think the ad was wrong on so many levels and will end up hurting Obama in the long run. The Democratic Party is supposed to be the one of inclusion and that ad excludes alot of Americans.
I probably didn't understand most of it as I, well I just am not that smart!!!
I look at the President of the United States as an American above all, when I see him address a race or group specifically and saying that his opponent would not do as much as he would or their lot in life would be worse if it was not for him, that is very disappointing. I expect more from the President of the United States.
I would feel the same if John F. Kennedy was sitting there with his feet on the desk and bottle of Jamison in his hands singing Danny Boy with a tear coming down his cheek, saying I will be the only one that will go to bat for you paddies...
Anyway, I think the ad was wrong on so many levels and will end up hurting Obama in the long run. The Democratic Party is supposed to be the one of inclusion and that ad excludes alot of Americans.
majorwhiteapples
5,000+ Posts
Even if I agreed with that Satch, Republican Politicians are not the President of the United States, big difference there......even if that POTUS was a Repbulican, he is excluding me as an American in that ad.
Bad ad, bad message! It will hurt in the long run, exclusion never does well in advertising or marketing!!!
Bad ad, bad message! It will hurt in the long run, exclusion never does well in advertising or marketing!!!
major
To be sure, the ad has some problematic aspects to it, one being that, though Obama has purposefully avoided making race a major issue in his campaigns or presidency, the ad can be seen as exclusionary. I don't think that is reasonable, really, as I read the ad as a nod to a constituency's needs, something that all presidents do (most presidents also ignore or in some way exclude groups that fail to support them -- Bush was very reticent to speak to the NAACP and similar groups because he felt they were hostile, something that may have further led to blacks feeling that bush didn't care about them -- not saying that is necessarily accurate, by the way). Obama is going to have a great deal to say to the whole populace, his entire constituency, etc.
Beyond that, the fact that blackness is so culturally, socially, and politically prominent in the black experience is problematic, as well. It is understandable, but it is nonetheless at times the less optimal approach. That is another topic altogether.
At any rate, I understand that the mechanics of race and racism are slippery, that it seems progress tramples on itself (how does one recognize one's position as black, and the myriad dynamics that go along with that position, without helping to perpetuate the negative aspects of race, and even racism?).
It is taxing. I know that. It is taxing and trying for blacks, as well.
Whiteness is sometimes described as being invisible, as being the default position, i.e., the dominant position has a fabric interlaced with connections to systems and structures that supported whiteness overtly and covertly, purposefully and incidentally, and that fabric is assumed to be preferable, accepted, and productive. Blackness is always on stage, it is always being vetted, pushed this way and that, tested and questioned. It is always seen or imagined and has trouble hiding or blending in. If there is a default with blackness it has traditionally been one that considers darkness of skin to be connected with devalued characteristics, dirtiness, stupidity, childishness, laziness, ugliness, animalism, primitivism. Some of these characteristics have at times been thought of as useful to the overall project of whiteness, i.e., slumming with the Negroes helped well-off whites feel they could for a time get in touch with the 'real human' in themselves, the part that had been obscured by modernity. But generally, blackness carries negative weight. It is a tiresome load and it is not easy to altogether throw it off.
Like it or not, race is a big issue in our society, in the deepest nooks of the country's workings. It is complicated and requires a vigilant honesty in the assessment of the self and others, so, naturally, not many people, black, white, or otherwise, are particularly adroit at effectively discussing it.
When I read that people think that the NAACP is a racist organization because the title refers to the advancement of 'colored' people, as opposed to everyone, I am discouraged. To me such a read is incredibly simplistic and indicative of attitudes that are very problematic for progress. You may not have noticed, but, while I post about race issues with regularity, I do not affix the label of 'racist' to very much. In this day and age there is usually something a little more complicated going on. Racism is not really simple to fully explore, so that should say something about how complicated our current race issues are, and when I say 'our' I mean all US, even, global inhabitants.
To be sure, the ad has some problematic aspects to it, one being that, though Obama has purposefully avoided making race a major issue in his campaigns or presidency, the ad can be seen as exclusionary. I don't think that is reasonable, really, as I read the ad as a nod to a constituency's needs, something that all presidents do (most presidents also ignore or in some way exclude groups that fail to support them -- Bush was very reticent to speak to the NAACP and similar groups because he felt they were hostile, something that may have further led to blacks feeling that bush didn't care about them -- not saying that is necessarily accurate, by the way). Obama is going to have a great deal to say to the whole populace, his entire constituency, etc.
Beyond that, the fact that blackness is so culturally, socially, and politically prominent in the black experience is problematic, as well. It is understandable, but it is nonetheless at times the less optimal approach. That is another topic altogether.
At any rate, I understand that the mechanics of race and racism are slippery, that it seems progress tramples on itself (how does one recognize one's position as black, and the myriad dynamics that go along with that position, without helping to perpetuate the negative aspects of race, and even racism?).
It is taxing. I know that. It is taxing and trying for blacks, as well.
Whiteness is sometimes described as being invisible, as being the default position, i.e., the dominant position has a fabric interlaced with connections to systems and structures that supported whiteness overtly and covertly, purposefully and incidentally, and that fabric is assumed to be preferable, accepted, and productive. Blackness is always on stage, it is always being vetted, pushed this way and that, tested and questioned. It is always seen or imagined and has trouble hiding or blending in. If there is a default with blackness it has traditionally been one that considers darkness of skin to be connected with devalued characteristics, dirtiness, stupidity, childishness, laziness, ugliness, animalism, primitivism. Some of these characteristics have at times been thought of as useful to the overall project of whiteness, i.e., slumming with the Negroes helped well-off whites feel they could for a time get in touch with the 'real human' in themselves, the part that had been obscured by modernity. But generally, blackness carries negative weight. It is a tiresome load and it is not easy to altogether throw it off.
Like it or not, race is a big issue in our society, in the deepest nooks of the country's workings. It is complicated and requires a vigilant honesty in the assessment of the self and others, so, naturally, not many people, black, white, or otherwise, are particularly adroit at effectively discussing it.
When I read that people think that the NAACP is a racist organization because the title refers to the advancement of 'colored' people, as opposed to everyone, I am discouraged. To me such a read is incredibly simplistic and indicative of attitudes that are very problematic for progress. You may not have noticed, but, while I post about race issues with regularity, I do not affix the label of 'racist' to very much. In this day and age there is usually something a little more complicated going on. Racism is not really simple to fully explore, so that should say something about how complicated our current race issues are, and when I say 'our' I mean all US, even, global inhabitants.
NEW: Pro Sports Forums
Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.
Pro Sports Forums
Pro Sports Forums
Recent Threads
-
Trump Administration Accomplishments
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 376
- West Mall
-
Elon Musk Stuff
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 514
- West Mall
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
Insanity, thy name is public education
- Started by ProdigalHorn
- Replies: 22
- West Mall
-
Lord Soros is not happy
- Started by BrothaHorn
- Replies: 24
- West Mall
-
'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'
- Started by Namewithheld
- Replies: 3K
- West Mall
