| Author |
Message |
    
Tonya
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Tonya
Post Number: 4504
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 06:00 pm: | 
|
Powell, Rice and Obama
Putting Black Faces on Imperial Aggression
By GLEN FORD
February 16, 2007
"Barack Obama is our son and he deserves our support," declared Illinois Senate President Emil Jones Jr., speaking to a gathering of Black Democrats at the party's winter meeting, in Washington, earlier this month. By Jones' logic, Condoleezza Rice deserves automatic African American support as "our daughter," and Colin Powell, her predecessor as George Bush's Secretary of State, was due fealty as "our brother."
Jones' embrace of the entire African American family tree must also, therefore, extend to U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, the most reactionary, anti-Black member of the High Court; and to "our brother" J. Kenneth Blackwell, the former Ohio Secretary of State whose consuming mission in 2004 was to deny the franchise to as many fellow Blacks as possible.
Although the winter meetings are traditionally showcases for candidates to display their positions on the issues of the day, State Sen. Jones saw no need to present his appeal on Obama's behalf in any packaging other than race. In effect, Jones attempted to relieve Obama of any political obligation to Black people. Under Jones' formula, the relationship between the Black office-seeker and the African American public is reversed: it is the people that owe allegiance to the candidate, who is in turn set free to woo groups and promote interests that may be inimical to those of the Black public.
Jones and the larger political current he represents would utterly gut Black politics of all substance, rendering the entire electoral process worthless to the Black masses. Perhaps the greatest irony of Jones' issue-less directive is that it masquerades as a Black empowerment strategy. In a transparent bid to shame Blacks in the Hillary Clinton camp - another political desert - Jones said African Americans don't "owe" anyone. Jones elaborated later, in a conversation with a Chicago Sun-Times reporter. "How long do we have to owe before we have an opportunity to support our son?" he said.
In other words, Black people's "debt" to the Clintons - as if such ever existed - has been paid, and now it's time to herd Black voters behind Obama, like so many cattle. Jones' brand of politics holds that Black people don't have interests or political ideals, only obligations to one politician or the other. In Jones' world, African Americans are constantly indebted, but nobody owes them anything - certainly not Obama, "our son."
The Emil Jones brand of Black politics is based on the assumption that African American aspirations are limited to a simple desire to see Black faces on display in high places, no matter the public policy content of that representation. It is as if emancipation of the slaves could be achieved by moving Ol' Massa out of the Big House, and installing the Black butler in his place, while the conditions of life and labor in the fields remain unchanged. After all, the butler is one of "ours." The slaves should be happy to experience a vicarious freedom, through their "son." Further, it would be downright unfamily-like to pester our own kin about the need for forty acres and a mule per household.
Jones' remarks exemplify an extraordinary vulgarization of African American politics, the product of uncritical, Jim Crow-era reflexes that linger within the Black polity, combined with the growing influence of corporate money in the Black leadership-creation process. The advent of Barack Obama's stealth corporate presidential candidacy could create the conditions for a "perfect storm" that sweeps away what remains of issues-based coherence in Black electoral and institutional politics. Should that occur - and there is much evidence that the unraveling is already well advanced - the collapse of progressive American politics becomes inevitable, a high price to pay for a Black face in the Oval Office.
Imperial Obama
African Americans will pay a special, historical price if a corporate-molded Black politician becomes the titular leader of an unreconstructed U.S. imperial state - and, make no mistake about it, Barack Obama is an imperialist. No one but a deep-fried imperialist could describe U.S. behavior in Iraq as "coddling" the Iraqis, as Obama said to an establishment foreign policy gathering in Chicago, late last year. His Iraq War De-escalation Act, carefully calibrated to make him appear slightly less belligerent than Hillary Clinton, allows the U.S. to wage war until March 31, 2008, at the very least, and to maintain a military presence in the country thereafter. It is a sham measure, more helpful in buying time for Bush than in encouraging effective dissent.
At his core, Obama is not opposed to U.S. violations of other nations' sovereignty; he simply opposes "dumb wars" - as he told a reporter for the Chicago Reader - meaning, aggressions executed by less-than-bright American Commanders-in-Chief. U.S.-designated "interests," not adherence to international law, are paramount - the fundamental tenet of imperialism.
Of the declared Democratic candidates, only Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich can pass anti-imperialist muster; thus the near-certainty of another imperialist in the White House in 2009. Which brings us to the special price that African Americans will pay if the face of U.S. imperialism, is Black.
The New Face of Aggression
There was a time not that long ago, when the historic struggles of Black Americans for racial equality, decolonization and peace were admired throughout the African Diaspora and beyond. Especially in what was called the Third World, African Americans were perceived as different than the arrogant, racist "ugly Americans" - the whites that strutted around other people's nations as if they owned them. In the early years of the Vietnam War, there were many reports of Viet Cong attempts to spare Black American soldiers' lives, if practical, as an acknowledgment of shared suffering under white rule. When Iranian students seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran, in 1979, African Americans were soon released, along with female staffers.
It is difficult to imagine such differentiations being made on foreign shores, today. General Colin Powell emerged from Gulf War One as the personification of American military might - and threat. As George Bush's Secretary of State, Powell sacrificed his reputation - and an immeasurable portion of remaining African American planetary good will - in a lie-soaked justification of the impending invasion of Iraq before the United Nations.
Colin Powell became the Black face of international piracy, to be succeeded by Condoleezza Rice. In her first act as the Black American female face of imperial aggression, in April, 2002, then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice could not contain her disappointment at the failure of a U.S.-backed coup against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. "We do hope that Chávez recognizes that the whole world is watching," she sneered, "and that he takes advantage of this opportunity to right his own ship, which has been moving, frankly, in the wrong direction for quite a long time."
As Secretary of State, Rice is the reigning imperial drum major. Despite a string of Chavez victories in fair elections and his overwhelming support among the poor and mostly non-white Venezuelan majority, Rice last week loosed another transparent threat against his government. "I believe there is an assault on democracy in Venezuela," she told a congressional committee. "I do believe that the president of Venezuela is really, really destroying his own country, economically, politically." What a spectacle: American imperialism in black-face, threatening a mixed-race president whose government has arguably adopted the most racially progressive and inclusive policies on the South American continent.
When Rice claimed that the U.S. had been meeting with Venezuelan Catholic leaders who were "under fire" from Chavez's government, the vice-president of the Venezuelan Bishops' Conference - no friend of Chavez - called her a "liar." Contrast this with Barack Obama's exchange of pleasantries with Rice before voting to confirm her as chief diplomatic operative of the Bush endless war doctrine.
From Beirut to Caracas, Condoleezza Rice is the Black, snarling symbol of U.S. lawlessness - a perception of our African American "daughter" that the NAACP must not have anticipated when it bestowed on her its Image Award, in early 2002. Back then, Rice told the civil rights group's gala affair: "As I travel with President Bush around the world and as we meet with leaders from around the world, I see America through other people's eyes."
African Americans, who care so much for image - some, to the exclusion of all else - should contemplate what the ascension of a Black face to the Oval Office will mean to world perceptions of Black Americans as a group. Would Barack Obama be a worse international criminal than Hillary Clinton? My guess is, they'd function identically, as stewards of empire. But a Barack Obama presidency would leave an unindelible impression on the planet: The Blacks of the United States have arrived! They, too, are "ugly Americans."
Glen Ford is executive editor of the Black Agenda Report can be contacted at Glen.Ford (at) BlackAgendaReport.com.
http://www.counterpunch.org/ford02162007.html |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 7334
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 07:13 pm: |
|
Excellenet article and I've reached this conclusion because I didn't find anything in it's in-depth analysis to disagree with. I was wondering if the writer was one of those duplicitous black conservatives but if he was, he wouldn't be condeming Condoleeza Rice or defending Venezuela's Chavez. |
Tonya
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Tonya
Post Number: 4505
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 07:48 pm: |
|
Cynnique, that's exactly what I said when I read the article. This brother read every crevice of my mind on this issue and I was checking to see if he was a conservative, too, thought I was being set-up! I came to the same conclusions you did tho: Condi Powell & Chavez. It really is a brilliant article, chock-full of heavy analyses without seeming partisan at all. I agree. |
Chrishayden
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 3664
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 11:07 am: |
|
I have been saying this for years.
All non white people will rue the day a Negro sits in the White House--at least if it is soon.
Maybe the children and grandchildren of those just reaching adulthood will be real leaders. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8450
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 18, 2007 - 12:38 am: |
|
What I would like to see Glen Ford and other Obama polemics do is present a substantive reason (based on a juxtaposition of their skills, education, experiences, talent and public RECORD) why Hillary Clinton would be a better president than Barack Obama.
Until I see that, I'm mostly going to view you all as being House Niggras to Bill & Hill. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 7359
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 18, 2007 - 01:37 pm: |
|
Why doesn't a yard nigga like you do what you request of the house niggas, ABM? Of course, any one who can't discern that Ford has not adopted a polemic stance in this article would be hard-pressed to mount a relevant response especially since the article was not promoting Hillary Clinton. This "critique" was about the dilemma which will be peculiar to Obama as a nonwhite candidate. It is not something that can be rebutted by listing Hillary's shortfalls. She comes from a entirely different matrix because as a woman candidate she carries her own baggage. Your petulant obsession with Hillary Clinton clouds your vision because of your assumption that everybody who raises questions about Obama is automatically a supporter of her. Deconstructing political candidates in a presidential race is the order of the day but you apparently think Obama should be given a pass. Glen Ford positions himself as a spokesman for a black agenda, and because he asks the hard questions that deflate your dream of a black president representing a panacea for black folks, you stick out you bottom lip and pout. Go on back to watering flowers and frettin bout Miz Anne which, as a yard nigga, would seem to be your area of expertise. Field niggas would never engage in tit-for-tat exchanges. They'd be too busy ruminating about the intentions of house niggas like Obama. |
Tonya
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Tonya
Post Number: 4521
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 18, 2007 - 05:56 pm: |
|
...and there you have it!
(Cinnique, when you're cooking you're cooking, good Lord.
...and amen.)
|
Mzuri
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Mzuri
Post Number: 3540
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 18, 2007 - 06:10 pm: |
|
All the house niggas, yard niggas and field niggas betta get right!!!
|
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8459
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: 
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 18, 2007 - 08:36 pm: |
|
This article is so ridiculously baseless and biased against Barack Obama, it's hardly worthy of a rebut.
First, anybody who knows a gotdayam thing about Senate President Emil Jones Jr. KNOWS he embraces Obama not because of Obama's color but because of Obama's POLITICS. Jones - a powerful, ardent Illinois DEMOCRAT - worked WITH Obama for 7 years in the State of Illinois Senator fighting FOR laws and causes that benefited Black Illinoians.
There is no significant overlap in Obama's politics, policies and philosophies and those of Condi Rice and Kenneth Blackwell. And there's nowayinHELL Emil Jones would support Rice or Blackwell just because they're kneegrows.
And the author decries Obama's proposal to end the Iraq War by March 2008 - which is by FAR the most direct and earnest proposal by any of the current presidential candidates on the issue - yet conveniently AVOIDS contrasting Obama's proposal with the SPECIFIC proposal of his opponents.
Obama recommended we pull out from Iraq within ONE years time. When in American HISTORY has America withdrawn it's standing US Army troops from a foreign country - and OIL RICH foreign country, no less - within ONE year's time of announcing such? Hell. If that actually occurs, that measure ALONE should garner Barack Obama a Nobel Peace Prize.
And what does HILLARY intend to do to get us out of a war that MOST Americans consider an abject failure?
We KNOW she voted to allow Bush to prosecute the war while in 2002 Obama quite eloquently spoke AGAINST our invading Iraq. We ALSO know Hillary still refuses to admit her error in supporting the war even though some REPUBLICAN members of Congress have done such.
In fact, the author attempts to indirectly confer Black support for Hillary Clinton by baselessly slamming Obama without so as the courtesy of mentioning a SINGLE reason WHY one should vote for her.
You all keep talking this BS about race and color loyalties and sh*t but are either ignorant of the actual policies and positions of the presidential candidates or are so gotdayam beholding to Missy (Anne) Hillary, it don't much matter to you. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 7373
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: 
Votes: 3 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 18, 2007 - 10:21 pm: |
|
You just don't get it, ABM. You're looking up the cow's ass and we're talking about his face. This article is not about endorsing anybody, it's more about the unprecedented ramifications of Obama being a non white president in a country that is by nature imperilistic and the impact that this will have on a world that is more black than white. |
Tonya
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Tonya
Post Number: 4525
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: 
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 18, 2007 - 10:29 pm: |
|
Wednesday, Feb. 14, 2007 3:46 p.m. EST
John Edwards to Congress:
Cut Iraq War Funds
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said Wednesday that he would immediately pull about a third of U.S. combat troops out of Iraq if he were president.
Congress should also cut military funding to force President Bush to do so, Edwards said.
Edwards is going a step farther than rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who want to cap the number of troops in Iraq to prevent Bush's increase, but are reluctant to cut funding while soldiers are on the ground.
"At this point, the escalation is under way, so blocking it is not enough," Edwards told reporters in a conference call. "So what I'm doing today is calling on Congress to take the next step, which is to cap funding."
Edwards spoke as the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives debated a measure opposing Bush's decision to send 21,500 troops to Iraq to help the 130,000 that were already there at the beginning of the year. Edwards said the non-binding resolution being debated is not enough.
Edwards proposed capping troops at 100,000 and says all combat forces should be out of Iraq within 12-18 months.
However, Edwards said he would not go as far as another Democratic primary rival, former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who wants Congress to cut off funds to end the war. Edwards said the war needs to end in a "smart, orderly way."
© 2007 Associated Press.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/2/14/154823.shtml?s=ic |
Tonya
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Tonya
Post Number: 4526
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 18, 2007 - 10:35 pm: |
|
...not an endorsement of anyone. Just a reply to the comment above. 
|
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 7376
Registered: 01-2004
Rating:
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 18, 2007 - 10:44 pm: |
|
Yes, Tonya, you might as well post the Edwards article since ABM insists on regarding any commentary about Barak as being an attack on him that requires defending. Now he can respond to something that's been said instead of something he imagines has been said. The poor sap would probably have a heart attack if you'd run something favorable about the dreaded Hillary. Woooooooooo. |
Mzuri
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Mzuri
Post Number: 3544
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 18, 2007 - 10:50 pm: |
|
Speaking of President Hillary:
Clinton urges start of Iraq pullout in 90 days
Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:32 PM ET
By Jim Wolf
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the early front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has called for a 90-day deadline to start pulling American troops from Iraq.
Clinton, the wife of former President Bill Clinton, has been criticized by some Democrats for supporting authorization of the war in 2002 and for not renouncing her vote as she seeks the U.S. presidency in next year's election.
"Now it's time to say the redeployment should start in 90 days or the Congress will revoke authorization for this war," the New York senator said in a video on her campaign Web site, repeating a point included in a bill she introduced on Friday.
In October 2002, Congress authorized President George W. Bush to take military action in Iraq before the U.S.-led invasion of March 2003.
Republicans blocked the Senate on Saturday from considering a nonbinding measure, adopted on Friday by the House of Representatives, denouncing Bush's decision to send another 21,500 U.S. troops to Iraq.
In offering what she called a roadmap out of Iraq, Clinton said a visit there last month had made her more determined to start what she called a long overdue withdrawal.
Clinton's bill would cap the number of troops in Iraq at the January 1 level, prior to Bush's decision to add 21,500 to the approximately 130,000 soldiers already there.
The buildup is part of a push to quell growing sectarian violence but comes as opinion polls show the majority of Americans disapprove of Bush's decision to send more troops.
Clinton's bill would require congressional authorization to exceed her proposed cap on U.S. soldiers in Iraq.
Bush, announcing the troop increase on January 11, said stepping back prematurely would collapse the Iraqi government, tear the country apart "and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale."
"If George Bush doesn't end the war before he leaves office, when I'm president, I will," Clinton said in the video.
Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, another Democratic presidential hopeful, said last week it was unclear how Clinton planned to end the conflict. Obama has called for a phased withdrawal to be wrapped up by the end of March 2008.
At a January 17 news conference after visiting Iraq, Clinton repeated her call for a phased redeployment as a way of pressing the Iraqi government to shoulder more responsibility for security. But she stopped short then of proposing a deadline for doing so.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2007-02-18T033144Z_01_N17363761_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-USA-CLINTON.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
|
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8465
Registered: 04-2004
Rating:
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 19, 2007 - 10:53 am: |
|
Tonya,
It's great to see Obama's LEADERSHIP on the Iraq War issue is inspiring his opponents to (pretend to) follow suit. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 7383
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 19, 2007 - 01:45 pm: |
|
Puleeze. Why would anybody have to "pretend to follow suit" when the Iraq war overshadows every other issue in the presidential race. A candidate would be remiss not to come up with a their own plan to extricate America from Iraq. Apparently when one takes on the role of a Barak cheer-leader, shaking the pompoms rattles the brain. LMAO. |
Ntfs_encryption
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Ntfs_encryption
Post Number: 1846
Registered: 10-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 04:18 am: |
|
Quick comment: Although Cynique and ABM seem to have differing views of Mr. Obama -I like both arguments! Please continue......
|
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8499
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 10:25 am: |
|
Ntfs,
There are reasonable arguments against voting for Obama. And then there's just flatout bvllshyt:
Reasonable Arguments:
1) He doesn't have sufficient experience on the national scene.
2) He, largely because of 1), might not be able to rally the personel capable of effectively campaigning and then running the country.
3) He, again largely because of 1), might not be able to raise enuff DOUGH to effectively campaign.
But some of this stuff that being linked to Obama is RIDICULOUS. Because it can't be traced to ANYTHING the man's ACTUALLY said and done.
It's a strange sort of masochism Black fok often engage in. One where, due on some baseless notion that because there appear to be a significant number of non-Black foks who may vote for Obama, he MUST be some sort of stealth, sabotaging anti-Kneenegrow. And this is argued INSPITE of the man's RECORD.
I mean, dayam man. Anyone who will actually frickin' READ (presumeably with COMPREHENSION) knows it's intellectually DISHONEST to conflate Barack Obama with Condi Rice. Yet, as you can see here, even (supposedly) intellegent Black foks will buy into that bvllshyt.
When I'm inclined to, I'll likely keep the debate going here. Not for the benefit of the Obama boobirds who post here. Because, frankly, I consider most of their posts to be bereft of an HONEST and INFORMED perspective. But because, hopefully, the vast majority of foks who read but do not post might begin to SERIOUSLY consider how they should select their next president and WHO that man or woman should be.
PS: Notice that it was only AFTER Obama announced what he intend to do about the Iraq War did Hillary Clinton and John Edwards annouce their alleged intentions to solve the problem (eventhough, again, BOTH of them voted to APPROVE and FUND the Iraq War). And they waited for Obama to announce his plans eventhough they BOTH formally announced their presidential candidacies BEFORE Obama announced his.
So I ask you, my brotha, which of these 3 people have demonstrated true LEADERSHIP and COURAGE concerning this nation's most urgent/pressing problem? |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 7417
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 06:05 pm: |
|
Well, NTFS, it's difficult to engage in a debate with someone who rebuts points you haven't advanced in order to provide himself with a platform to rattle off Obama's record. Especially since extolling Obama's legislative record is irrelevant to the central idea of an article asking what can be anticipated of a black man, who after being swept into office with the overwhemling support of black voters, ascends to the office of being the leader of the most powerful imperilistic country in the world. It is a legitmate question to ask how this will impact on the nonwhite third world countries who have traditionally been subjected to the hegemony of America. And it is pertinent to speculate on how difficult it will be to determine where Obama's loyalties will lie. And I continue to scoff at the idea that there's great merit in Obama beating Clinton and Edwards to the draw by coming out with a plan to extricate America from Iraq. It's not about whose first, it's about whose plan is the most viable and it's ridiculous to think that Obama's opponents are just following suit in coming forth with their plans. Or is it a sin to question the sincerity of the patronizing paternalistic Emil Jones entreating black voters to take Obama to their chest and embrace him as one of their own, something he would be apalled at if this same request was made in regard to the "authentically" black Coondoleeza Rice and Clarence Thomas. And having the audacity to accuse everybody who doesn't blindly support Obama of being house niggas is the height of folly when Obama himself is the house nigga supreme. That's why white folks love him so. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 7422
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 08:14 pm: |
|
And I might add that if anyone doesn't think that the suave, palatable, glib Barak Obama isn't a house nigga just ask yourself why Al Sharpton, who embodies the other side of the black coin, would be a presidential candidate that would represent white America's worst nightmare. |
Yukio
Veteran Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 1879
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: 
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 08:50 pm: |
|
cynique: but should the black community embrace candidates based on whom white folk like or dislike?
This country is controlled by white folk, be they democrats, republicans, or non-voters, so what point really is there of determining if he is a 'house negro' or not?
Was Clinton, the socalled first black president, also a house negro? |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8522
Registered: 04-2004
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 09:19 pm: |
|
Yukio,
You're gotdayam RIGHT Clinton was a "house negro". You see when things got hot for him how quickly he SOLDOUT Lani Gaunier, Dr. Jocelyn Elders and every other hapless kneegrow that was near him? |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 7424
Registered: 01-2004
Rating:
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 10:24 pm: |
|
The house nigga term was introducted by ABM in order to discredit those who were not squarely in Obama's corner. My position was if he wanted to talk about house niggas then Obama fit the bill since the origin of the term house nigga dated back to slavery and referred to somebody who was in the good graces of the "massa". And to fortify my argument I compared Obama to Sharpton who is not in the good graces of the massa. I fail to see what Clinton has to do with anything especially since I never said the Clinton was the first black president. So don't put words in my mouth. |
Yukio
Veteran Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 1882
Registered: 01-2004
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 10:56 pm: |
|
well elder cynique, I suspect that I can add to the conversation if I choose?!
black folk embraced the socalled first black president [twice] too and white folk also backed Clinton...
in other words, its all relative, especially when Sharpton's power is in his ability to get issues to the public and on the Democratic Presidential Candidate's Platform...that has been his purpose, or should I say, function, for running president. To get black issues and class issues on the platform! |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 7426
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 11:08 pm: |
|
BTW, Yukio, I don't think it's so outrageous for the black community to be suspicious of a black presidential candidate who white people swoon and fawn over. And I'm surpised that you would ask if blacks should be concerned about what whites think of a such a candidate, considering that institutionalized racism would presumably dictate that a major political party would not elevate a black man to the position of running for president if they didn't think he would serve their purposes. The whole phenomenon of a black man mounting a serious run for the highest office in the land spawns all kinds of mind-sets and nobody can control how people think or can anyone demand that the black community be of one mind. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 7427
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 11:13 pm: |
|
And most black folks embraced Clinton because they are tradionally Democrats and didn't like who was running against him. They embraced and voted overwhelmingly for Gore, also. |
Yukio
Veteran Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 1883
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 11:19 pm: |
|
Cynique...LOL! So true, so true! You should know me better than that, though...you do know what Realpolitik means, right?
Obama, as some said, is running for the president of the U.S. not black America! In this country, it is always and forever a matter of voting for the best of the worst! |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8525
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 07:54 am: |
|
Yukio,
I've mostly ignored or discounted these (largely) fallacious arguments of about Obama's alleged Blackness. Why? Because that sh*t pales in comparison to what I consider most RELEVANT to discerning whether or not he should be president.
There are plenty of politicians who are BLACKER than Obama I wouldn't be caught DEAD voting for. And there are White politicians I'd actually consider choosing over Obama.
But I sure as hell am NOT voting for Hillary Clinton's politically duplicitous and fractious a$$ SIMPLY because she and Bill have bought up favors amongst Black politicians and so-called Black leaders over then last 20 years. At THIS point in our history, that's a stupid and dangerous thing to do.
Again. There are REAL/LEGITIMATE reasons for not supporting Obama. But much of what's been described on this site by several foks do NOT qualify as such. |
|
Email This Page