what if hillary said....

[bullmoose88]

I love the lack of attention from Obama supporters.

I brought this up before, too. I guarantee that there would be strong, persistent calls for her to drop out.

I'll take a page out of Opebo's playbook simply because it *may* be relevant.

Its one thing for historically and socio-economically disadvantaged group to vent at the group that has enjoyed the most success and has the most advantages.  Its petulant and perhaps annoying yes, but relatively speaking its not as bad as the reverse situation the superior using a poor stereotype for the weaker.

We cut the underdog a bit of slack, as we should.  It doesn't make Obama's typical white person stereotype right (although I suspect there's some truth in it, though it could have been put better).  But there's really no excuse for the reverse to occur.

For what its worth.

[bullmoose88]

Its one thing for historically and socio-economically disadvantaged group to vent at the group that has enjoyed the most success and has the most advantages.

But Obama isn't actually part of that group, save by choice.

That's a fair criticism, however, its probably more accurate to say he's a member of both groups, enjoying the pluses and minuses of each.  

But one thing for sure, whatever group Obama's in (and whether he speaks for the african american community or not, and by choice or not), Hillary's coming from a position of socio-economic, cultural, and historical dominance (well almost, since she's a woman), and such a comment would be completely inexcusable, whereas there *might* be an excuse for Obama.

[bullmoose88]

I love the lack of attention from Obama supporters.

I brought this up before, too. I guarantee that there would be strong, persistent calls for her to drop out.

I'll take a page out of Opebo's playbook simply because it *may* be relevant.

Its one thing for historically and socio-economically disadvantaged group to vent at the group that has enjoyed the most success and has the most advantages.  Its petulant and perhaps annoying yes, but relatively speaking its not as bad as the reverse situation the superior using a poor stereotype for the weaker.

We cut the underdog a bit of slack, as we should.  It doesn't make Obama's typical white person stereotype right (although I suspect there's some truth in it, though it could have been put better).  But there's really no excuse for the reverse to occur.

For what its worth.

"The underdog." Wow. So much for moving towards that true racial equality!

As long as we keep excusing one group from everything, we're never going to reach the point that people say they want to reach. "Oh, it's ok. You can say that. You're the underdog. Keep beating up on the bad white man."

Oh, and don't excuse stereotypes for Obama with saying, "Well, it might be true." Again, I can't say that some stereotypes about blacks are true, right?

I understand that line of thought, but for a group that's been so trampled on in our history and now, surely some indulgence has to be made when its them and not us who are out of line, considering how often its been the reverse.

[bullmoose88]

That's a fair criticism, however, its probably more accurate to say he's a member of both groups, enjoying the pluses and minuses of each. 

Nonsense. If he was actually "black" (ie; a descendant of slaves) he would not be in the position that he is today. Ugly but true.

But you wouldn't disagree that he has faced some additional discrimination (more than the average white person) because of his color and background.

[bullmoose88]

So they'll complain and get away with their mistakes because they're "the underdog" for how long? What period of time will "make up" for what was done to them? A hundred years? Two hundred? Then what? When do we move towards racial equality?

I won't excuse Obama's stereotypes just as he wouldn't excuse mine. Remember, Obama was a vocal critic of the nappy headed 'ho stereotype...

Has Obama gotten away with a mistake? I seem to recall him losing some support poll wise and has had to repudiate those remarks.  Its not like he's gotten away scot free.

But to say he and Hillary should face the exact same outcome for comparable remarks just isn't realistic.

You don't grant a blank check for "their" mistakes, but when it happens, you take it into account as a mitigating factor.  There simply isn't a mitigating factor for Hillary.

[bullmoose88]

Has Obama gotten away with a mistake? I seem to recall him losing some support poll wise and has had to repudiate those remarks.  Its not like he's gotten away scot free.

The point is that it isn't the firestorm it would have been if the white woman said it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's sadly not realistic because the same people who preach about racial equality are simply hypocrites and opportunists.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Blame the white man but give the black a pass" isn't the path the racial equality, moose. I know you enjoy finding reasons why it's not as bad for Obama to say what he said but if you want to take that route, don't complain about the need for real equality.

You fail to understand that it isn't a free pass, Phil. Obama's getting flak for it. Is he getting less flak than if Hillary said something similar? Of course.  Obama has a mitigating factor, Hillary doesn't.

The two persons aren't equal to begin with, so its unreasonable to expect an equal outcome.

I realize you live in a color blind fantasyland where the last 2 plus centuries of inequality have faded into Myth and everyone's on equal footing except for what they have made themselves.

But to say that someone from the minority position (even if, as Al points out, he may be there from choice) should get the same exact treatment as someone from the advantageous position is silly.  The person from the disadvantageous position should have that position taken into account.  Perhaps, as Al's point (if I take it correctly) seemed to say, Obama shouldn't get the free pass (since he hasn't really experienced the same hardship as those african americans who came over via triangle trade), but to say blame the white man let the black man get a free pass is disingenuous.  

The African Americans remarks could be attributed to anger for being put down for a very very long time.  Its disgusting yes, I don't suppose to guess how one would react in that situation, but I don't see the notion of cutting just a little bit of slack (now this is different than saying, no negative outcome at all, or it didn't happen) as being unreasonable.

What mitigating factors would someone from Hillary's position (privledged caucusian) have?

[bullmoose88]

That's a fair criticism, however, its probably more accurate to say he's a member of both groups, enjoying the pluses and minuses of each. 

Nonsense. If he was actually "black" (ie; a descendant of slaves) he would not be in the position that he is today. Ugly but true.

But you wouldn't disagree that he has faced some additional discrimination (more than the average white person) because of his color and background.

I don't know because I'm not especially familiar with the details of his life (and, frankly, don't want to be). But in theory he would have done (though more for colour than background). But I'm not sure what that has to do with your main point.

I'll conceed the point.  All I'm saying is, Obama may have a mitigating factor for his remarks, while Hillary does not.  The two persons aren't comparable to begin with to even begin contemplating an even punishment.

[Edit: I'll admit I've gotten some points crossed between your and Phil's broader argument.]

[bullmoose88]

You fail to understand that it isn't a free pass, Phil. Obama's getting flak for it. Is he getting less flak than if Hillary said something similar? Of course.  Obama has a mitigating factor, Hillary doesn't.

Your argument about there being a "mitigating factor" is enough of a free pass for me.

You want me to believe that Clinton and Obama are on the same footing to begin with, and the broader proposition that blacks and whites are on equal footing (or rather equal enough footing)?  And if they're not, why can't we take the disparity into account when analyzing why we all suppose Hillary will get different treatment compared to what Barack has gotten?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am in no way saying that or believe that. I'm simply fighting the hypocrites that want to talk about us all moving forward together towards racial equality (people like yourself, I'm sure) and then make an excuse everytime a black person does something like this.

By the way, I don't want to live in a color blind society. I want to live in a society where we embrace our differences.[/quote]

Okay, maybe my hyperbole/exaggeration was a bit out of line there, but every time a black person does something like this?  So far I (since you've basically equated myself and the rest of those hypocrites) have only defended Obama's comments and the some of the factual components of his pastor (another story entirely and if you want to dig into that, go ahead, but you may wish to do so in another thread).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's unreasonable because there has to be a time when enough is enough. You still didn't answer my question: when will enough time pass so that we don't have to excuse people when they do this? When will minorities reach the point where they've gotten their "revenge" for being put down? When do we move forward? We are constantly told that this must be done and yet everytime someone of the "unpriveledged" status slips up, there is an excuse. When does that end or will the finger pointing go on forever? If it is never ending, don't lecture us of the "priveledged" position about not making advances in race affairs. Thanks.
[/quote]

I never said that the finger pointing should last indefinitely.  But to think that after a good 150 years+ of slavery, another 100 of segregation and Jim Crow, and not even including any more modern and less obvious forms of inequality, that its okay to say, enough is enough.

Yes, as we both have Italian ancestry we both know it wasn't just african americans who got the shaft, but they got it especially bad and perhaps still do.

No, we can't allow a tit for every tat that's ever occurred throughout our country's history; however, to be like (and i'm not really attributing this anything you've said) look, we've made you equal under the law and done our best to try and improve your socio-economic fortune, you need to get over what happened in the past and not harbor any animosity.  I just don't see that as being realistic right now.  Heck I'm still not even sure that despite what the law says, everyone is equal under it.  So while its obvious to you and I both that Obama or the average black guy can't and shouldn't hold a grudge forever, I guess I can maybe see why they may think the typical white person has some sort of racial aversion considering our history.  And perhaps I can sort of in a sense be a little more forgiving when they blurt out a plain ole dumb remark than I would from someone or some group who hasn't been subjected to what other groups have had.

And you, from my interpretation from what you've said (and I probably am wrong), seem to think that now that everyone's equal (be it equal under the law, or has equal opportunity or both) everyone should get the same sort of repremand for similar offenses.  And if that's actually true, maybe you have something but...

I guess when I see it, things currently aren't equal enough, and I'm not advocating some sort of massive shake up of the existing order (Opebo's right, i favor the status quo too much), I don't see the speakers as necessarily being equal in the first place (unfortunately, and maybe Phil you're right, I'm a hypocrite) and thus I don't necessarily see the meaning behind the words (despite the textual similarities) as being the same and thus meriting the same sort of rebuke.

So yes, both Obama and Hypothetical Hillary should be rebuked, but I can't see them getting the same admonishment. 

Shrug.