|
|
Post by liriodendron on Sept 2, 2012 9:41:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Sept 2, 2012 10:41:29 GMT -5
Indeed. Wow.
And people wonder if the hostility towards Obama has anything to do with racism.
|
|
|
|
Post by joew on Sept 2, 2012 15:09:14 GMT -5
I guess this is one of those half-full/half empty things. An event that used to be segregated isn't this year: progress. Another event still is segregated: not progress.
What if the black graduates enjoy having some time when they don't have to be with the white graduates?
|
|
|
|
Post by liriodendron on Sept 2, 2012 16:36:00 GMT -5
Well, I can't imagine any of them wanting to be with the white graduates after this. If you wish to hold a private party at your residence and include only some of your classmates you should them a separate invitation.
|
|
|
|
Post by jspnrvr on Sept 2, 2012 18:03:19 GMT -5
If think a key word here is "socially" segregated; it's no longer official policy. As joe was getting at, there is the freedom of association. That doesn't mean such feelings are good or correct, and it doesn't mean that somone wasn't stupid (as lirio pointed out) by letting a private invitation show up on the Official Reunion Facebook site. Remember, the class of '73 grew up in the era of desegregation and enforced busing. Old feelings can run deep, and take a long time to be replaced.
That's why there probably is some racial component by some of the anti-Obama crowd. But remember, what was it, 95%, 96% of the black vote that he got? Just as surely, a lot of Pro-Obama sentiment is race based as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Sept 2, 2012 20:45:03 GMT -5
Do you think black people voted for Obama just because he is black? Believe it or not, most people who voted for Obama, black or white, voted for him because they thought he was a better candidate than McCain, myself included. It is a bit odd to think that "all those black folks well they just automatically vote for other black folks."
As I recall it, McCain got 10 - 15% of the black vote, but I am too tired to look it up. Black people and Hispanic people come in all political stripes just like white people, even though many assume that because they are black or Hispanic they must be liberal Democrats.
Remember, we are talking Louisiana in the article, and the heart of Cajun country at that. I remember the first time Bobby Jindal ran for governor (full disclosure - I was a strong supporter of his campaigns), against Kathleen Blanco. You could almost literally hear the redneck minds whirring: Hmm, the white woman or the "colored" man, which is worse. Bobby lost the first round but after Blanco's miserable performance after Katrina, the Louisianans reconsidered.
So I'm with the commenter who said "I am surprised that people are surprised." Here is a clue to the racism: those people who still insist that Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya and hand over tens of thousands of their tax dollars so that Sheriff Arpaio can go to Honolulu "to investigate" the birth certificate; those who put monkey images of Obama on campaign posters; those who still proudly fly the Confederate flag at home and put the Stars and Bars on their Republican campaign posters - well those people might be racists.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Sept 2, 2012 20:53:23 GMT -5
I guess this is one of those half-full/half empty things. An event that used to be segregated isn't this year: progress. Another event still is segregated: not progress. What if the black graduates enjoy having some time when they don't have to be with the white graduates? I graduated from a public high school (an academic magnet school) in Louisiana in 1969 and in my class of 105 students, 3 were black. So the reality was that black students and white students weren't likely to be "friends" anyway - they lived in different neighborhoods, went to different churches, etc. They might as well have gone to different schools, as the classes were mostly segregated - college-bound classes for white kids, vocational classes for black kids. I did not go to school in Bayou Teche Country, but I think I had a pretty good idea of how it worked from when I went to state wide youth group events. |
|
|
|
Post by jspnrvr on Sept 2, 2012 22:48:40 GMT -5
Nope, sorry doc. McCain got about 4-5% of the black vote www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_08.html#.UEQf1CI8NqAwhich was down from previous Republican candidates. I found one source that mentioned even as late as the Ford candidacy, he got around 16% of the black vote, that traditionally Republicans have gotten 12-16%. Left over from the days when blacks voted heavily for the "Party of Lincoln"; Martin Luther King was a Republican. That was different in this last election, when that 12% went to Obama, leaving McCain with about 4-5% of the black vote. Black people are no different than any other people, you are correct, so to deny there is any less racial thinking in that community would be wrong. The fact is that there are a heck of a lot more black people voting democrat than republican, but their votes shouldn't be taken for granted, something the Obama campaign will do at its peril, the same if it takes the youth vote or the independent vote or any other "group" for granted. Things change, especially in politics. People liked him before when he was campaigning, they can un-like him now that he's been governing. And I read about the racist component of ant-Jindal efforts, "blacking up" posters to make him look darker and so on. Guess he changed their minds, huh? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Sept 3, 2012 0:35:07 GMT -5
I think McCain blew his chances by letting his advisors saddle him with an airhead for VP and by shooting back to Washington when the financial implosion of September '08 left us all staggering. McCain acted as if somehow his presence in DC would miraculously save the day, a sign of where his ego had taken him. I honestly say that in sadness, not in spite. I had thought very highly of him before his campaign in '08. Of course, more blacks voted for Obama. The first black candidate with real traction in the history of the country? Especially given the lackluster economy for the poor throughout Bush II's administration, people were desperately hoping for change. Most blacks are poor, under-employed and under-educated, so a man saying he'd change that hopelessness couldn't help beating a man who wasn't quite sure how many houses he owned. (He finally decided it was seven, as I recall.) He also continued to support the Iraq War when the whole country had begun to see it was based on false evidence and was taking a huge toll on American/Coalition and Iraqi lives. Do some googling on that MLK being a Republican business. Here's the first I found but there are tons of them: www.politifact.com/tennessee/statements/2012/jan/23/charlotte-bergmann/another-republican-claims-martin-luther-king-jr-wa/ If he actually was a Republican, that would have been a 1960s Republican, which is a whole different animal than the Romney branch of the GOP. Looking at his record, the marches and the speeches, his positions never bore any resemblance to Tea Party or Mitch McConnell Republicanism. |
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Sept 3, 2012 6:10:08 GMT -5
I don't see any value in a "countdown" of percentage of black votes for Republicans, as that sounds like a desperate rationalization of why there are mainly white faces on Republican slates; there is also concern among Republicans about lack of appeal to Hispanic voters for similar reasons.
So what if it is 5% or 10% or 15%, the fact is that there is no rule that black people have to vote for black candidates or that they cannot vote for white candidates, a fact that the GOP ignores at its peril. America is a melting pot soon to become "majority minority" (some states already are) and a party has to change to reflect the times or become irrelevant.
I think the factors gk cites (poverty, educational resources, employment, ending wars) are reasons for people voted for Obama, rather than "because he is black." Those factors disproportionately affect people of color, which may result in more votes from affected sectors of the voting population.
|
|
|
|
Post by jspnrvr on Sept 3, 2012 7:44:43 GMT -5
OK, gail and doc. We'll put Dr King in the "Independent" column. As far as the change in political parties, I doubt that Harry Truman or John Kennedy could be a 21st century Democrat. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, he didn't leave the Democrats the Democrats left him.
Your "Of course, more blacks voted for Obama.", just reinforces what I said about a percentage of black people voting for him simply because he was black. There are "yellow dog" Democrats and "straight ticket" or "last trumpet" Republicans, and there are people who will vote for, or against, a candiate's race. Along with other factors such as dissatisfaction with war and economy and "incumbent fatigue", the latter which always comes into play after a two term presidency. And I'll give you McCain's tactical blunder of suspending his campaign for that economy "summit" or whatever it was called.
And every one of those factors is in play this time, save that this is a one term incumbent. But overall, for most people, their principles, philosophy, and pocketbook are the basis of how they vote. We've seen, for instance, the dissatisfaction in the black community since Obama finished "evolving" and came out in favor of same-sex marriage; that's a philosophical, religious issue that could be a deal breaker for some black people. Likewise, the economy which has worsened; the undergrads for Obama in 2008 are the unemployed graduates of 2012.
Come November 6th, we'll see.
|
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Sept 3, 2012 19:25:56 GMT -5
OK, Your "Of course, more blacks voted for Obama.", just reinforces what I said about a percentage of black people voting for him simply because he was black. There are "yellow dog" Democrats and "straight ticket" or "last trumpet" Republicans, and there are people who will vote for, or against, a candiate's race. Along with other factors such as dissatisfaction with war and economy and "incumbent fatigue", the latter which always comes into play after a two term presidency. No, that isn't what I said. No time now. I hope you'll watch the convention and I hope the Dems stick to their promise not to go negative. Last week left me incredibly depressed. But now I'm off to play! |
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Sept 4, 2012 8:47:55 GMT -5
I think we will have to agree to disagree as this discussion has gone far from the original topic raised by lirio, namely that a high school reunion in Louisiana was still practicing segregation in 2012.
It is not in the spirit of PrairieChatter to turn the news story about segregated reunions into a discussion of racist black people who vote for Obama, nor to bring up ancient history of MLK's (alleged) party affiliation. I am not a moderator, but I suggest that if you want to have such a discussion, please start a separate thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by jspnrvr on Sept 4, 2012 19:28:07 GMT -5
Suits me fine. I've said the same thing myself when politics has reared its ugly head. Leave it lay.
|
|
|
|
Post by BoatBabe on Sept 6, 2012 0:00:58 GMT -5
I think we will have to agree to disagree as this discussion has gone far from the original topic raised by lirio, namely that a high school reunion in Louisiana was still practicing segregation in 2012. It is not in the spirit of PrairieChatter to turn the news story about segregated reunions into a discussion of racist black people who vote for Obama, nor to bring up ancient history of MLK's (alleged) party affiliation. I am not a moderator, but I suggest that if you want to have such a discussion, please start a separate thread. Personally, I feel that "the spirit of PrairieChatter" is to discuss whatever we want to discuss, whenever we want to discuss it, and wherever we want to discuss it. That is the way it has been since Trusty set up this joint, and that is the way it will continue to be, until we get some high-n-mighty "Moderator" who decides what and when and how we will discuss things. You are right. You are not a moderator. You, Doc, are very proud of being a "Dopey Crony," and chose to point that out on your last cruise, and post about it, and publicly chastise Garrison Keillor for being the jerk that you think he is for saying such a thing, and hiring moderators who tried to control talk on His Forum, for which he paid. I think we will discuss whatever we want, whenever we want, wherever we want. Personally, I feel that there is a lot of racism/bigotry in the whole world on many different levels. I had a long conversation this afternoon with an older woman I have known for a long time. She was held in a German concentration camp in her home country of Austria. She was nearly starved to death, but she attributes her survival to being 12 years old when she was incarcerated, instead of 5-6 years old, like most of her family who did not live through the camp. She and her brother survived, and were sent to the United States by way of Canada for a "better life." Now, her brother will no longer speak to her, although they live only blocks away from each other. Her brother is infuriated that, 70 years later, she owns more land than he does. She is heart-broken. He is masculinely old-world embarrassed that he does not hold the reigns over the last remaining (female) family member. I am astonished that people who have felt discrimination and hardship can dole out discrimination and hardship as rightful retribution to anyone. |
|
|
|
Post by joew on Sept 6, 2012 10:04:58 GMT -5
I'll just say that:
I think we can all accept the fact that we disagree about some things.
I hope we can discuss disagreements respectfully and civilly.
If the discussion on a particular thread gets badly off topic, someone can always start a new thread and try to bring the thread back on topic.
My own take was that the discussion of black people voting for Obama because of his race was more of a development of the topic than a departure from it, but the discussion may have reached an impasse.
There are few of us here, and I'd hate to see anybody pick up and leave.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jane on Sept 6, 2012 16:59:06 GMT -5
We all seem to be pretty well set in terms of our political and religious beliefs and views. It's extremely doubtful that anyone's minds are going to be changed. I'll never be anything but a complete and utter liberal and trading opinions with a complete and utter conservative isn't going to get anyone anywhere. So, while I grant that anyone can talk about anything, it's likely that certain discussions will lead only to anger and hurt feelings!
If the discussion can stay civil, so be it. If not, drop it.
In the meantime, please consider voting for Obama, the obvious best choice!
|
|
|
|
Post by BoatBabe on Sept 6, 2012 22:23:44 GMT -5
I may not be in The Loop, but I can't imagine any of our small and tight group deciding to pick up and leave because someone else does not agree with them!
I am on, or have been on, several of these discussion forums. One thought leads to another thought by others and the continuity is in the conversation, which may or may not support the original topic.
Who cares?
Isn't the point talking to one another and following the conversational leads?
But since I am now very aware of including in my conversation The Topic, (as I pointed out previously) I am astonished that people who have felt discrimination and hardship can dole out discrimination and hardship as rightful retribution to anyone.
That being said, folks who have always been on the top rung who have never suffered discrimination and hardship, yet choose to dole out discrimination and hardship to others as some God-given right, are folks I understand even less.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Sept 7, 2012 7:41:38 GMT -5
Joe I thought your comments were indeed a continuation of the topic, and of course we wander as the discussion proceeds.
I did not care for Jay stating I felt that MLK was a Democrat, as I had not done that; in fact it was my impression than "men of the cloth" generally avoided public affiliation with a party (Isn't that illegal for churches?). Also, I thought Jay's mischaracterization of Gail's statement was mean-spirited and unkind. That is what I would prefer to avoid in our PrairieChatter group - deliberate unkindness.
Perhaps it was unintended; I hope so. We do have a small group of long-term online friends.
As for GK and his remarks, I have always said that the APHC website and Chatterbox were his property to do with as he chose, though I thought name-calling was uncalled for. Likewise, his cruises are his very own charters; he writes the check and it is a big one. He can say and do whatever he wants, and I certainly do not have to take the cruise.
It just surprises me when a gentleman who usually appears so genial makes certain remarks; it seems out of character. He generally avoids meanness, or puts it into one of his characters, as opposed to his "real persona."
|
|
Dopey Member
