Minneapolis Star Tribune: Obama "happpens to be black , not a black politician"

Here is what the supposedly liberal Star Tribune had to say about Barack Obama today.



http://www.startribune.com/10088/story/871849.html

So let me get this straight, Obama happens to look black, but we don't need to worry because he is not really black. He is just black enough that Democrats can feel good about voting for him.

Maybe the Star Tribune can explain to us what a black politician is, and why that matters.

What a bunch racist filth this article is.

Obama is not my top candidate, but racist coverage of his campaign should absolutely not be tolerated. Please, no matter who you support for the nomination stand up and say you will not allow this kind of coverage to slide.

They're saying he's black, but he's not a black politician - he's *just* a politician, without the qualifier. The point is that he's transcending race so people see a person, not a black person.

I've seen this point in other articles. The comparison is often made to Michael Jordan, who has transcended race to the point that no one ever refers to him as a "black basketball star" - he's just a basketball star. Same thing with Tiger Woods.

Why would they ever need the qualifier? And what does someone need to do to lose that qualifier? Why can some people transcend race and others can't? And perhaps most importantly who decides when someone has transcended race?"

First, it's very complementary of Obama.

Second, it answers the questions you posed.

Like it or not, the fact that Obama is black is most certainly going to be a topic of discussion during the campaign. Winning the presidency would break a 200+ year stranglehold on the office by rich white men. That possibility, in itself, guarantees that it will be noted.

The article was certainly not negative towards Obama as a candidate, but it was negative towards blacks and portrayed it as if he were getting support just because he was black.

The quote I posted does far more than simply point out that he is black, your subject line is very misleading.

I'll make this simple.

Would you rather that Obama be called a "black politician" or a "politician"?

Exactly.

THAT is the point of the article.

while, on the other hand Black politicians - and most other Black people - are frequently referred to by their race. This article simply points out that Obama is not and should not be defined by his race.

There's nothing racist or even biased about the piece, in my view. It's just stating the obvious - that Obama is transcending racial stereotypes and classifications and is moving into a realm in which he'll be treated more like every other candidate and in so doing, he is blazing another trail for blacks.

they are trying to point out that he shouldn't be labeled like that.

It says that he is black, but not a black politician as if they can define whether or not someone is black by their beliefs and attitudes. Then they suggest that people are voting for him because it makes them feel good to vote for someone of a different skin color.

Yes that is a racist belief system.

Frankly, you're seeing what you want to see, and I doubt that any of us can convince you otherwise.

Now read my next post.

It says that he is black, but not a black politicianas if they can define whether or not someone is black by their beliefs and attitudes. Then they suggest that {b]people are voting for him because it makes them feel good to vote for someone of a different skin color.

Now what part of that misrepresents the quote?

Let's face it ... there are a lot of people that would not vote for activists like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson because they believe those men would only care about "black issues" - whatever that means. :shrug: I'm not saying it's right - it's a rather bigoted point of view - but nevertheless, there are people who feel that way. Surprisingly (or maybe not), those same people never worry about rich, white guys only representing the interests of other rich, white guys. :eyes:

dupe

Isn't it a good thing that people view him that way? :shrug:

Think of it like this ...
A person is either a politician or not. We don't need (or want) qualifiers like "female" or "Hispanic" or "Jewish" or "black" because those things don't matter ... at least they shouldn't.

I actually think calling Obama a "black politician" is insulting. It suggests that there is a difference between a black politician and a white politician. It's like saying, "Barack is my black friend." Why would a person feel the need to specify the color of his skin? The guy is either your friend or he isn't.

and that people see him as a senator or a candidate instead of seeing him as a black man first

if i understand it correctly that sounds like a pretty good thing to me

Peace Call

Open your hearts to the paradise,
To the peace of the heavenly angels,
Takes away that woeful shadow dancing on your wall;
Take to the skies of peace, oh friends,
Of peace of the heavenly Father;
Get ready for my bugle call of peace.


CHORUS:
Peace, peace, peace, peace, peace, peace, peace.
I can hear the bugle sounding,
Roaming around my land, my city and my town;
Peace, peace, peace, peace, peace, peace, peace.
I can hear the horn and voices ring louder,
While my bugle calls for peace.


Thick war clouds will throw its shadows,
Darkening the world around you,
But in my life of peace your dark illusions fall;
Think and pray my union way,
Kiss everybody around you;
Get ready for my bugle call of peace.
(CHORUS)


If these war storms fill your heart
With a thousand kinds of worry,
Keep to my road of peace, you値l never have to fear;
Keep in the sun and look around
In the face of peace and plenty;
Get ready for my bugle call of peace.
(CHORUS)


I値l clear my house of the weeds of fear
And turn to the friends around me,
With my smile of peace, I値l greet you one and all;
I値l work, I値l fight, I値l sing and dance,
Of peace of the youthful spirit;
Get ready for my bugle call of peace.
(CHORUS)

I'm not sure why ulterior motives are always read into things...perhaps because after 6 years of Bush those theories have been the more realistic answers for things. But that quote is harmless. They're saying it's not his color that defines him.

As for the lady's quote, that also is harmless. It's the "new face" perspective that it'd be refreshing to see a new type of "new face" in the White House. I'm sure that's the case with many. It's a novelty as in "refreshingly new."

i remember circa 1995 back when all the media was saying that about Colin Powell

Sad when The Onion headlines resemble political analysis in our press.

Why is he, therefore, called a black man???

regardless of the logic, that's just the way it is.

But in Obama's case, he is actually "more Black" than most Black Americans since he is 50% African. Moreover, he personally self-identifies as a Black man. Moreover, as a dark-skinned man with African features, he is physically identifiable as a Black person.

:wtf:

Overreaction like this is why people feel uncomfortable bringing up the topic at all.

The point that Obama presents himself to the electorate not as a black spokesperson first (ala Jessee Jackson or Al Sharpton), but as an example of the type of quintessentially American, universaltic and cosmopolitan "composite-self" that Whitman celebrated is an important distinction. Obama presents himself as a composite individual (which is certainly easier because he is biracial) whereas Sharpton and Jackson present themselves as individuals whose identity is primarily shaped my their membership in an historically oppressed group. They connect and have an affinity with other groups of Americans who have also suffered oppression by ruling elites.

These are different approaches and it doesn't surprise me that Obama's individualist approach is more resonant than Jackson and Sharpton's cultural approach given the individualistic nature of American political culture. Whether that is how it ought to be is an entirely different question.

But knee-jerk cries of "racism" whenever someone discusses the topic are worthless in my opinion. This article explores a provocative topic but it isn't racist to do that. There's not a normative endorsement of racism here. Merely a description of its reality as a lens through which whites evaluate candidates.

You explain a very complex subject with depth and clarity. You should expand on this and publish this somewhere!

From what used to be a fairly liberal newspaper to a red, white, and only white rag!

Geezuz!

they weren't being mean. they were saying that unlike previous black candidates like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, Obama breaks racial boundries with his mass appeal and connection to all walks of life, not solely blacks.

Please.

A friend of mine told me that she was meeting a client for lunch. Because the client didn't know what she looked like, she told him she was Black, so it would be easier to find her in the crowded restaurant. Her client got very flustered and kept saying, "It doesn't matter to me that you're Black. Just tell me what you'll be wearing." The guy really seemed to believe that if he identified her by her race, somehow that meant he was a racist.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with talking about Obama's race or even noticing that {gasp!} he's Black. The problem comes in when his Blackness is used to impose value judgments on him. But an open discussion about his race and how it's being dealt with in a political campaign is not only acceptable, it's an important discussion to have.

Now one who "happens" to be black, well that's a whole other thing. :eyes:

Of course it's racist. They may as well whisper behind their hands 'oh he's a "good black", not one of those 'n---'.

And as is typical, white people don't get it, or pretend they don't anyway.