--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What's really ironic, Robert, is that the "language of race", as the > author puts it in his article, is virtually the exclusive domain NOT > of the Republicans but of the Dixiecrats of the Old South WHO WERE > ALL DEMOCRATS. > > And even today, that still holds true: a recent poll found that 1/3 > of all WHITE DEMOCRATS harbour racist feelins towards Obama AND THIS > FACT ALONE COULD COST HIM THE WHITE HOUSE...NOT REPUBICANS! > > See: http://tinyurl.com/456bmp
Americans are recognizing that Obama is a phenomenon in American politics. If there are many racists in the Democratic Party, Obama wouldn't have gotten this far in the nominating process. IMO, there's a surging consciousness in the USA for a change from the present Republican administration, and it just happens to be Obama who is the best one among the Democrats to challenge the Republicans. In short, Obama represents the culmination of the struggle of the American people for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Anything less is slavery and servitude in more ways than one. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert <babajii_99@> wrote: > > > > > > The Language of Race.. > > > > It was not that long ago that black people in the Deep South could > be beaten or killed for seeking the right to vote, talking back to > the wrong white man or failing to give way on the sidewalk. People of > color who violated these and other proscriptions could be > designated "uppity niggers" and subjected to acts of violence and > intimidation that were meant to dissuade others from following their > examples. > > > > > > > > The term "uppity" was applied to affluent black people, who > sometimes paid a horrific price for owning nicer homes, cars or more > successful businesses than whites. Race-based wealth envy was a > common trigger for burnings, lynchings and cataclysmic episodes of > violence like the Tulsa race riot of 1921, in which a white mob > nearly eradicated the prosperous black community of Greenwood. > > Forms of eloquence and assertiveness that were viewed as laudable > among whites were seen as positively mutinous when practiced by > people of color. As such, black men and women who looked white people > squarely in the eye and argued with them about things that > mattered were declared a threat to the racial order and persecuted > whenever possible. > > This obsession with black subservience was based in nostalgia for > slavery. No sane person would openly express such a sentiment today. > But the discomfort with certain forms of black assertiveness is too > deeply rooted in the national psyche and the national language to > just disappear. It has been a persistent theme in the public > discourse since Barack Obama became a plausible candidate for the > presidency. > > A blatant example surfaced earlier this month, when a Georgia > Republican, Representative Lynn Westmoreland, described the Obamas > as "uppity" in response to a reporter's question. Mr. Westmoreland, > who actually stood by the term when given a chance to retreat, later > tried to excuse himself by saying that the dictionary definition > carried no racial meaning. That seems implausible. Mr. Westmoreland > is from the South, where the vernacular meaning of the word has > always been clear. > > The Jim Crow South institutionalized racial paternalism in its > newspapers, which typically denied black adults the courtesy titles > of Mr. and Mrs. and reduced them to children by calling them by > first names only. Representative Geoff Davis, Republican of Kentucky, > succumbed to the old language earlier this year when describing what > he viewed as Mr. Obama's lack of preparedness to handle nuclear > policy. "That boy's finger does not need to be on the button," he > said. > > In the Old South, black men and women who were competent, confident > speakers on matters of importance were termed "disrespectful," the > implication being that all good Negroes bowed, scraped, grinned and > deferred to their white betters. > > In what is probably a harbinger of things to come, the McCain > campaign has already run a commercial that carries a similar > intimation, accusing Mr. Obama of being "disrespectful" to Sarah > Palin. The argument is muted, but its racial antecedents are very > clear. > > The throwback references that have surfaced in the campaign suggest > that Republicans are fighting on racial grounds, even when express > references to race are not evident. In a replay of elections past, > the G.O.P. will try to leverage racial ghosts and fears without > getting its hands visibly dirty. The Democrats try to parry in > customary ways. > > Mr. Obama seems to understand that he is always an utterance away > from a statement or a phrase that could transform him in a > campaign ad from the affable, rational and racially ambiguous > candidate into the archetypical angry black man who scares off the > white vote. His caution is evident from the way he sifts and searches > the language as he speaks, stepping around words that might push him > into the danger zone. > > These maneuvers are often painful to watch. The troubling part is > that they are necessary. > > > > By BRENT STAPLES > > Published: September 21, 2008 > > >
