I just thought that the fact that you described people as "white" while you pointed out their racism was funny.
Jimmy Carter
- Thread starter Scooter
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
I just thought that the fact that you described people as "white" while you pointed out their racism was funny.
okay.. maybe it was funny.
let me explain - I did not say that "white" people were racist. I said that people are denying the existence of racial behavior (in some groups) pertaining to our first African American president. at least that is my understanding from seeing so many responses to the question of whether racism is playing a role... when people throw out the term "race card", they deny the (possible) racist nature of the situation in attempt to avoid any discussion on racism. In my opinion, this only serves to allow racism to continue.
Last edited:
Tootsie is specifically referring to racism against Obama. I think any racism against Obama would indeed originate with people who are white.
okay.. maybe it was funny.
let me explain - I did not say that "white" people were racist. I said that people are denying the existence of racial behavior (in some groups) pertaining to our first African American president. at least that is my understanding from seeing so many responses to the question of whether racism is playing a role... when people throw out the term "race card", they deny the (possible) racist nature of the situation in attempt to avoid any discussion on racism. In my opinion, this only serves to allow racism to continue.
I am one of those people that throw out the term, race card, but I also throw out other terms, like, bible card. IMO, continuing to pull the "race card" when there is a disagreement with our president's policies is a cop out. Now, when I said "cop out", did I disrespect the police force in any way? I certainly did not mean to, but I can guarantee somebody would read that and complain that I had disparaged all law enforcement officers across the land! We can all be a little too touchy at times!
I think this all begs another question....Should or shouldn't Mr. Obama address racism in this country? I can see why he tends to ignore the discussion, but the proverbial elephant is still in the room. I am on the fence here, because I am hopeful that just his being in office and doing great things for our country will serve as a remedy for some people. He is NOT the enemy, but some will view his policies as such and therefore, by virtue of him holding the highest office in the land, he becomes the target for people's ire. This is by no means anything new in this country. ;-)
No, but the term race card will offend the NASCAR crowd so be prepared for the fallout.
^5!
I was thinking about all this. The Carter years were the first years I reliably remember, and during the Iranian hostage situation Carter ordered a crackdown on Iranian students in the US. They were singled out and if the documentation giving them the right to study in this country was not complete, they were deported. I wonder if a contemporary presidents (or congressmans) call for such an action could possibly go without a vocal charge or racism or religious intolerance or such.
I don't fault Carter at all for his order to make life difficult for Iranian scofflaws, and I do not remember if there was any domestic protest of his policy (I doubt it because nightly broadcasts of punk Iranian students burning our flag and uncle Sam in effigy and marching around blindfolded hostages tend to brew contempt quickly). However, I wonder if Carter or others who are so quick to boil issues down to race or religion without consideration of other factors would not hurl such charges if a sitting president of differing political philosophy enacted an analogous policy...
I don't fault Carter at all for his order to make life difficult for Iranian scofflaws, and I do not remember if there was any domestic protest of his policy (I doubt it because nightly broadcasts of punk Iranian students burning our flag and uncle Sam in effigy and marching around blindfolded hostages tend to brew contempt quickly). However, I wonder if Carter or others who are so quick to boil issues down to race or religion without consideration of other factors would not hurl such charges if a sitting president of differing political philosophy enacted an analogous policy...
Apparently Mr. Obama addresses the race card this week with George Stephanopolis:
At The White House With President Obama - George's Bottom Line
At The White House With President Obama - George's Bottom Line
I like and respect the way Obama addresses the subject with balance, recognizing that the situation is far more complex than an angry group of racists - he knows that isn't the case. I am glad he is not in agreement with Carter and he is not pursuing the idea of a "race card" - because these arguments only serve to inflame those who act out of racist beliefs. I think he chooses to rise above, but still allow the conversation to exist - it is an important conversation to have. but the direction he takes our country is the critical matter - he is chooseing to focus on his job, not whether a segment of people react out of disagreement v. racism...
Carter crying "racism" isn't helpful imo - the issue is far too complex to boil it down to that single word - he has lived it and seen it throughout the world - the issue is not that simple. the response of "race card" is used appropriately and inappropriately all the time in the media. he should know that an accusation of racism will inflame a lot more americans than those who exhibit racist behavior. he knew that people would respond with the "race card" accusation. he should know that in the end, that people would react strongly to the point of denial, making racial issues even more problematic.. . but based on my observation of how this term is used in politics, I believe its a political strategy used to ignore racism and even perpetuate its existence - and that isn't right either. (I do not believe anyone here uses the term in that way, but it seems to be used in the world of politics in order to dismiss the idea of racism as if it isn't important, or does not exist. in my opinion, this is NOT the way a political leader ought to respond to any situation. the term is tossed about so casually by leaders and media. it is a misused term much of the time. minorities and groups who have been subjected to racial discrimination deserve a little more consideration, imo).
bottom line - I think the term is a denial of potential racism, and therefore an insult to those who truly suffer the consequences of racism in America, or abroad. I don't use it. that is my choice. on the other hand, those who accuse groups of racism in such a simplistic/juvenile manner (Carter) - well, they aren't serving minority groups either.
Last edited:
I do not think we can have an honest conversation in this Country until we acknowledge, especially the Left, that we are enabling racism to a degree. Groups like Acorn, that represent the minorities, especially are not helping. I believe we still need to be cognizant of racial profiling in our society and keep some form of containment and exact some degree of responsibility on it's effects; but, when this Country gives money to groups, and policies are affected by lobbies and who political gains, there will never be any honesty about racism.