Name changed to reflect thread content after reading posts of the last couple hours.

_____________________________________________

Whatever Obama is likely to do as President, WE ARE PLEASED !

Here are a couple articles [I never have heard whether these links to LATimes articles work without registration]:
Obama's win hits home in black L.A.

Obama's win brings hope and excitement to U.S. 'I never thought I'd live to see this day,' an 80-year-old supporter says, reflecting on the black experience in America.

And nowhere will there be more celebration than in the Obama's former church.

News flashes:

This is taking place is the United States.

Black people- even the prosperous and wealthy among them- want to see all their people at least be equally elligible for the American Dream. So its no surprise you'll see ALL the aspirations of African Americans and others wrapped up in the language of the American Dream and 'this great country'.

Dupes of the World Unite !

And celebrate !

[ 05 June 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

Reading blogs by progressive and radical POC in the US, most of whom have a very clear idea of what Barack Obama is and isn't, I find critiques that are valuable and thorough and from the perspectives of POC, a perspective lacking on babble.

From comments on The Angry Black Woman:

quote:

---

I turned on the tv, expecting a victorious Obama speech. And I got one. First, I cried. And then I called my family and screamed, “Are you WATCHING?!” And then I jumped up and down. And now I’m crying again. I am incredibly excited and just contemplating the historic nature of this night. But one of my sisters has already called me to express her concern over assassination attempts, and we discussed how horrible it would be if that were to happen.

---

quote:

---

It doesn’t matter that Barack Obama is not a radical like Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Fred Hampton or many of the other martyred Black political leaders.

Even though he is a moderate Democratic with strong ties to Corporate America he has come to symbolize a broad progressive multi-racial coalition.

---

Angry Black Woman: History Has Been Made and it is Bittersweet

From Racialicious.com:
Open Thread. I recommend scrolling down to read the comments

From Black Women, Blow the Trumpet!

quote:

---

Obama's Victory Formula = Nefarious Commitment To Blacks + Kowtow + Compromises + Optimistic Message + White Voter Approval

The Obama/Black Camelot imagery was intentionally crafted in order to perpetuate this romanticized ideal of what a black Ivy League couple in the White House would represent for black America. It was also perpetuated to manipulate white voters who were still seduced by the historical imagery of the blue bloods, Jack and Jackie. The black masses were caught up in emotionalism and symbolism, and Obama received 80% of black support. Once again, there is absolutely NOTHING placed on the table that black voters demanded. Obama has the nomination and black people are celebrating loudly - forgetting of course that he has not made ANY specific commitments to the black community.

In order to implement effective tactical maneuvers, we must make a commitment to pay close attention to our patterns of clinging to emotionalism and symbolism. Our lack of vigilance about the pervasiveness of emotionalism and symbolism has been repeatedly used to exploit us and to "win" our acceptance. We need to measure both carefully and not allow emotionalism and symbolism to steer our priorities and govern our attachments to causes, movements and initiatives.

---

quote:

---

KenS, I really hope that you were joking when you wrote "Dupes of the World Unite" because if you weren't, that's a very disrespectful name to call Obama supporters.

Reading blogs by progressive and radical POC in the US, most of whom have a very clear idea of what Barack Obama is and isn't,

---

Irony goes awry again. Becomes awrony.

I know that progressives are aware of what Obama is and isn't. But saying that repeatedly doesn't stop those around here who think we need "reminding" of what he is / is not.

Hence, "Dupes of the World Unite".

quote:

---

Boom Boom: I think the entire class was electrified by Obama's success at getting the Democratic nomination, solely based on skin colour

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:

Every white man in Canada who has been elected has done so on the basis of skin colour.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:

What about all the [insert not-white colour here] men (and women) who have been elected?

---

I take it your question means you agree with my point, then. Great. Which was that racism has been a part in the successful elections of every white man, and I neglected to include white women, that has been elected in Canada.

Which is of course the entire point behind the ridiculous notions of whether BMO can represent white people. Why have I never heard the question was Paul Martin able to represent people of colour, or white women?

An Historic Moment on the blog reappropriate.com

Story in the Jakarta Post

Trinidad and Tobago Express

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:

I take it your question means you agree with my point, then. Great.

---

Sorry to KenS for the continued thread drift.

[ 05 June 2008: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
Your original point was that "Every white man in Canada who has been elected has done so on the basis of skin colour."

It's pretty straightforward. I'm just wondering on what basis people like Gurbax Singh Malhi, Ruby Dhalla, or Navdeep Bains get elected in Canada.

---

There's a lot of tokenism in federal politics, parties yielding charity seats to minorities to pretend to be cosmopolitan. It gets whiter and manlier as you look into cabinet, and then into the more important cabinet positions.

Just look at the conservative cabinet, it's so white male it looks like a caricature. In the previous liberal cabinet, hedy fry, jane stewart, sheila copps were all treated as jokes. Allan Rock and Brian Tobin were taken seriously. I'd point out minority members who were treated as jokes but for some mysterious reason I can't think of any important visible minority members in the old liberal cabinet.

Also, not all non-white racism is the same. South asians, east asians, blacks, aboriginals, arabs, et cetera each face different hurdles qualitatively and quantitatively.

quote:

---

Having this weekend severed a 16-year relationship with Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, Barack Obama might as well let the final shoe drop and resign once and for all from Black America, a polity he refuses to recognize or respect despite garnering 90 percent of Black electoral support. Never in African American history have Black people's collective affections been so callously rebuffed by an individual Black recipient. The fact that Black people's "love" for the Illinois Senator is wholly unrequited is obvious to everyone except wishful Obamites - a pitiful spectacle to behold.

If there is a tie that binds more tightly and unthinkingly than the romantic urges of adolescents, it is the pull of nationalism. African Americans have the misfortune to be self-shackled to Obama by deep historical yearnings to wield power through their own racial representatives, as other "nations" of people do. The problem is, Black Americans find themselves trapped in a threesome, in which the object of their Black nationalist aspirations is hopelessly enamored of someone else: the mythical white American nation.

"I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country," said Obama, in banishing Trinity's retiring senior pastor Jeremiah Wright from his inner circle, in April. Obama believes in One-Love - of the white fairy tale kind that despises the "use [of] incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation." Barack Obama is true-blue to the slaveholding forefathers and heroic blond mothers of the storybook U.S. of A. His intense (white) nationalist fealty to the Indian-killer and slave-whipper compels him to reject out of hand the African American version of U.S. and world history - to compulsively dismiss both the Black counter-narrative and narrators, like Rev. Wright. And if some stray white man in a clerical collar wanders in, assaulting white sensibilities with denunciations of white skin privilege and other unwelcome language, Obama can be counted on to slap the wayward priest down, forthwith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
If Obama is elected there will be many African Americans for whom the fact of a Black person in the White house will always be enough- especially for the older generation, and including some politicians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
Just look at the conservative cabinet, it's so white male it looks like a caricature.

---

quote:

---

No need to single out the Conservative cabinet when the NDP, Lib, and Bloc caucus' have the same problem.

---

Perhaps you cannot tell the difference between his refusal to support the Iraq war and Rice's likely criminal liability for the invasion?

Or maybe you can't tell the difference between Colin Powell's lifelong military service compared to Obama's work as a political organizer in the Chicago slums?

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
No one is giving Obama a "free ride".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

This is one of the most condescending and patronizing statements I have seen on this board, I'm sorry to say. I'll refrain from calling it anything worse than that. I must say it's disappointing to hear from someone who incessantly accuses others of speaking on behalf of African Americans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
No one is giving Obama a "free ride".

Perhaps you cannot tell the difference between his refusal to support the Iraq war and Rice's likely criminal liability for the invasion?

Or maybe you can't tell the difference between Colin Powell's lifelong military service compared to Obama's work as a political organizer in the Chicago slums?

Indeed, maybe there is no distinction which is sufficiently clear if one is politically blind, like "Kropotkin". (Nice name: politically irrelevant for 100 years, though!)

---

The differences you refer to from the point of view of the rest of the world is would I rather be beat up by someone using their fists or someone using a stick with a nail in it. My response is I don't want to be beat up at all. But you apparently would rather submit to the beating with fists as a better alternative, that is your opinion.

In the post above I was merely using the statement you point to to express that, as in all communities, African Americans will not relate to an Obama presidency the same- that many will make no demands on Obama to actually deliver.

The context is in the following statement, which was the reason for the post:

quote:

---

But you can expect that on the whole, African American activists and politicians- including the Congressional Caucus- will not shrink from making President Obama squirm if there is not at least movement towards realizing concrete benefits from that fact. Simultaneously: saying to all Americans "that was a good first step, now we are going to talk about what comes next."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
If Obama ever came to babble and started posting the crap he has been saying in his speeches, he'd be shunned as a racist troll and banned in short order.

---

All political standards are specific to location in time and location in space.

There's a reason people on babble typically don't run for office.

The standards by which Obama should be judged are those of American leadership, and not those of the far left in Canada.

[ 05 June 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pogo:

quote riginally posted by unionist:

This is one of the most condescending and patronizing statements I have seen on this board, I'm sorry to say. I'll refrain from calling it anything worse than that. I must say it's disappointing to hear from someone who incessantly accuses others of speaking on behalf of African Americans.

Aren't you being just as bad?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
In the post above I was merely using the statement you point to to express that, as in all communities, African Americans will not relate to an Obama presidency the same- that many will make no demands on Obama to actually deliver.

---

I repeat: You accuse others of speaking in the name of African Americans, even though I have never seen you cite a single credible example of that.

But tell me this, Ken: Why do you post here about what the "older generation" of African Americans is satisfied with, and about what "African American activists" will demand?

quote:

---

Ralph Nader calls it a "blood oath", and that any and all presidential candidates are beholden to big business interests,

---

Everyone recognises that, in the united States, candiadtes are "beholden" to big business to some extent. The question is, to what extent?

Unless you close your eyes entirely to "all Presidential candidates", and thus to national-level politics as a whole, you will necessarily look for the least beholden of the candidates who might actually achieve something.

That candidate is Obama. His fundraising to date makes him far more "beholden" to relatively unwealthy people, than ANY serious candidate for a long time.

He has raised a total of $270 million dollars
from approximately 1.5 million people. 45% came from people donating less than $200.00. Another 141,000 people gave from $200 to $1000.00.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?id=N00009638#bli

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/us/politics/21donate.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
Boom Boom, I need to say that this comment has stood out to me, and needs to be called out on. This comment seems to indicate a complete lack of understanding of the depths and power of systemic racism in the US.

---

quote:

---

Obama is, far more than anyone else running, the candidate of the people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
Obama is, far more than anyone else running, the candidate of the people.

---

I think Nader is referring to Obama's record and policies, which have made him the darling of Wall Street.

quote:

---

It's pretty straightforward. I'm just wondering on what basis people like Gurbax Singh Malhi, Ruby Dhalla, or Navdeep Bains get elected in Canada.

---

No you're not. You're questioning white supremacy.

On topic...

When I was in South Carolina in 1963, I talked to white leftists, all of them solidly in favour of civil rights, who thought religion had no part in the movement, so they poo-pooed Martin Luther King, a "Christian Minister."

When I talked to black people, THEY said:
"You don't understand the meaning of the black church during 300 years of oppression; don't come talking these abstract formulas to US, we've been there."

To make light of the fact that Obama is a black candidate for President is to misunderstand, in a similar way, the weight and meaning of the black experience in America.

quote:

---

This is one of the most condescending and patronizing statements I have seen on this board, I'm sorry to say. I'll refrain from calling it anything worse than that. I must say it's disappointing to hear from someone who incessantly accuses others of speaking on behalf of African Americans.

---

No one here has claimed to speak on behalf of African Americans.

I have accused you of appropriating the voice of African Americans. That is not a statement about whether or not one has attempted to speak on behalf of African Americans.

It is a claim that ones narrative amounts to an attempt to appropriate the voice of African Americans.

I'm sure you would say I'm the one doing that. Fine. We'll leave it at that.

I will point out that after Michelle asked me to stop, which I did, she also asked you not to bring it back up and and thereby antagonize me.

I've stayed out of it even when you have brought your grievances / accusations against me back, as you did unprovoked again this time.

If I go correcting how you have once again mischaracterised what I said- a few times now since the original post- it will never end.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
There is a huge inability to understand the experience of racism on the white left. (Of course, it is far worse on the right, where many are openly racist.)

---

I find it funny how when the left points to the long-time democracy gap, the counter-charge of racism is hauled out.

It's not because he is not white, Jeff. It's Obama has no intention to challenge power of the health insurance lobby, or very much of the right-wing lobby in general. Obama is bought and paid for already.

Just as you accuse Cubans of disallowing anyone other than a communist party member of running for political appointment - which is patently false - the right-wing lobby in the U.S. select all presidential candidates well before the competition-charade for party nominations, and for all TWO parties with any snowball's chance in the plutocracy.

eta: I think it would be racist to believe that POC are not capable of being bought-off. Why would anyone be different in this regard?

[ 05 June 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

I should have put it there in the first place.

My original deluded thought is that it would be seen as harmless for people to have just one discussion where that considered how now that Obama was the candidate- and should he become president- how that could be an opening in the US used by activists irregardless of what Obama does.

quote:

---

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
Your original point was that "Every white man in Canada who has been elected has done so on the basis of skin colour."

It's pretty straightforward. I'm just wondering on what basis people like Gurbax Singh Malhi, Ruby Dhalla, or Navdeep Bains get elected in Canada.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:

If Obama ever came to babble and started posting the crap he has been saying in his speeches, he'd be shunned as a racist troll and banned in short order. It's therefore sickening to see babblers falling over themselves to idolize him.

---

quote:

---

You mean, in the AR forum we can't attack Obama because he's BLACK???

---

Frankly, I'm looking for somewhere to hide from you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
You mean, in the AR forum we can't attack Obama because he's BLACK???

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

The important thing is that African and other Americans believe that Obama is not just another run of the mill warmongering Liberal plutocrat who breaks election promises.

---

Well by all means, let's stoke that illusion and keep it on life support.

I nearly closed out the window when I saw your name there... but then I read that someone was hoping you would stop posting, lollllll.

quote:

---

I will not post here. Unless you respond to me or mention my name, even once. Let's see if you can manage that much self-restraint.

---

Can I be permitted some clarification first?

I didn't mention you in this thread, and only responded by asking you to lay off when you personally attacked me. That was apparently motivated by left over resentment from our last round. But that's one of the ways these things get perpetuated.

I'll gladly go back to not mentioning you after this post, but I'll note that in earlier threads you did not stop referring to what you saw as the error of things I said about your posts after the moderator told me to leave the thread, and asked you not to keep bringing it up lest it bring back the offending KenS. So I've already practiced self-restraint in not responding to those.

But you aren't the problem. I think before you posted in this thread there was a post that was downright inflammatory.

Here we have a thread where from the outset the clear direction of the discussion is about African Americans celebrating, and about progressive African Americans being realistic about what can be expected and beginning a discussion about what they want [ie, not depending on Obama.]

And people STILL feel the need to come with the same litany of what a pretender/demagouge/tool/etc Obama is that has dominated every other thread. Beginning with a post capped with a comment that Obama would be treated as a racist troll if he came to Babble [!].

And what a surprise- everyone except the REALLY combative people leave the discussion, and it is for all intents and purposes dead except fot the attacks and defenses against attacks.

I have previously been one of those combative people. But I thought I'd try begging for a while. I already asked the moderators to do something about the tone, apparently to no avail.

I did defend wanting the thread moved by responding to unionist that I was trying to hide from him. That was overstated desperation, and he was the one who attacked the request. Whether unionist stays away from the thread or not, I'd still like the thread moved to the AR forum.

[ 06 June 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
[to unionist]...But you aren't the problem. I think before you posted in this thread there was a post that was downright inflammatory.

Here we have a thread where from the outset the clear direction of the discussion is about African Americans celebrating, and about progressive African Americans being realistic about what can be expected and beginning a discussion about what they want [ie, not depending on Obama.]

And people STILL feel the need to come with the same litany of what a pretender/demagouge/tool/etc Obama is that has dominated every other thread. Beginning with a post capped with a comment that Obama would be treated as a racist troll if he came to Babble [!].

---

My post to which you take such great exception consisted mostly of a quote from a progressive black American who is critical of Obama. Apparently that makes you unhappy. Only black voices that are supportive of his treachery are welcome, in your eyes. Sorry to rain on your parade.

I note, however, that you didn't take exception to the link and quote posted by BCG in the second post of this thread, entitled "Black Women Blow the Trumpet." Had you bothered to read it, you would have noted that the author of that blog was far from celebratory of Obama ["Obama has the nomination and black people are celebrating loudly - forgetting of course that he has not made ANY specific commitments to the black community"] and, in a portion not quoted in the babble post, went on to say: "In several blog discussions, I have mentioned the detriment in being attached to anything - whether it is a cause, a public figure, a movement - based on emotion. I have mentioned the detriment in the pattern of interpreting people and groups through the lens of symbolism." Sound advice that many babblers would be wise to follow, but of course not conforming to your project of cheerleading for Obama.

I note also that while you take such great exception to my post, you do not make any attempt to refute the author's statements and opinions. I guess your main objection is that criticism of Obama should simply be verboten, but not discussed or even acknowledged.

And you can stop pretending that the tiny number of anti-Obama babblers have "dominated every other thread" about Obama. The vast majority of babblers appear to believe that USians would be wise to vote for him, and they have been saying so for many, many months now. In fact, what usually "dominates" threads about Obama is reaction to any criticism of him, without actually refuting it, along the lines of "who cares if he's an imperialist puppet of the US ruling class; so long as John McCain doesn't get in, we'll be happy." And much of this from the same people who have been happily comparing Obama to Michael Ignatieff!

If I were to suggest that a Michael Ignatieff would not be welcome at babble, who would disagree? But if I say the same about Obama, you get all huffy and indignant.

Why is that, I wonder?

quote:

---

Whether unionist stays away from the thread or not, I'd still like the thread moved to the AR forum.

---

[ 06 June 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

So freaking annoying. I'm closing this. Could someone ELSE maybe start a thread on the same subject if you'd like to continue the discussion? And maybe not delete the title after the thread has a couple dozen or more posts?