|
VioletGray -> RE: "Potentially" Racist (10/28/2009 9:54:47 PM)
|
Well, I did take care to say "some." And there are definitely some. Remember the republican politician who landed in hot water after he circulated a photo-shopped e-mail of the White House lawn turned into a watermelon patch? Now sure he was only a mayor, but he was still someone who got elected to public office.
And once again, I think that it is the vitriol that accompanies some people's criticisms of Obama, whether the criticism is valid or not, that leads people to suspect racism, even if the person doesn't realize it. When Clinton was in office he met with a lot of opposition by the Right, and many were disdainful of him, as they would be of any adversary in a war of ideologies.
With Obama however, some of those same people are panicked. At least it's the impression I get. I mean really? Tea Parties? I think that there are republicans who would rather see a republican in power, and try to combat Obama's liberal ways in any way possible because they don't agree with his politics. That's fine, that's what America is all about, all conservatives are simply ideological opposites, not racists, unless they prove otherwise. But I think it's fair to say that there are older, white, middle-to-upper class men who are chafing under these changing times. And it's a human thing. People in power are uncomfortable with change that they didn't introduce.
quote:
"Racist undertones." Sounds like there is a potential accusation brewing, Vio. A "nothing we can actually put our finger on" sort of charge.
Bear in mind that the standard of vitriol we need to measure against has been set at "rabid and insane." Bear in mind that in this climate, a website which compares the physical characteristic of the President of the United States to a chimpanzee was completely ok. No filthy name, no vile caricature was too extreme. That is where the bar was set before President Obama came to office. That's where the bar will be for him. I don't like that one bit, but my ability to stop it is mighty fucking non-existent.
Let me offer an alternate definition of racism, too. Having a different set of rules because of the color of the President's skin.
There's nothing wrong with a "nothing we can actually put our finger on" sort of charge because each of us is entitled to our opinion, and you don't have to except mine as truth, I'm just saying that what I've seen gives me this impression.
I think your argument ignores certain realities of race and history. The reason the depiction of Bush as a chimp didn't have quite the same 'bite' as the depiction of Obama is a chimp is because blacks have had their humanity called into question time and time again via comparison to animals. There was more offense because of the context. Bush had 8 years to make people hate him. And this was coming off a sky-high approval rating immediately after September 11th. Which he squandered on a highly controversial war and other things. Obama seems to generate such fierce opposition in less than a year!
Also I think that in some way your definition for racism actually coincides with mine. The whole point is that some of his opposition does have seperate rules for him based on the color of his skin. Maybe not all, maybe not most, but to say it isn't there at all is unrealistic. In my opinion, of course.
|
|
|
|
