Obama's speach today

[Ovedya]

It is not racist for Obama to basically say something alkong the lines of;

"Are Blacks at the bottom rung of economic society? Yeah. Does it have something to do with slavery, segregation, not being being able to be accepted to good schools, or amass any meaningful wealth to pass on because of white oppression? Most likely. We shouldn't play the victim, but instead fight on in the face of adversity and build a new future."

How is that untrue, or racist?

There are certainly other races that are not even doing as well as blacks. Other races that are minorities by a much larger margin than blacks. If Obama is trying to be inclusive perhaps he should be including every non-white in that list of those who are being oppressed by rich white men. His one sided view of the inequalities, economic as well as social, only supports the claims of his being racist. As others have said, where is his compassion and inclusion when it comes to native Americans?

If you listened to his speech, and what he has been saying this whole time, you'll find he included hispanics, asians, native-americans etc. He just didn't focus on them as much because, well, everyone is focusing on his race. He's defending himself primarily due to the "black issue", but he didn't leave out the other races in his speech.

He said Blacks are the bottom rung of the economic ladder. Are there not any races in the U.S. that have a smaller population and are equally poor if not moreso, such as the Hispanics? Would you not say he is showing a racial bias by claiming such a title on behalf of blacks?

I don't think so. He's a black man, so obviously he's going to think in those terms.

[Burning_Ember]

He used primarily black people as an example (although he mentioned other races in his speech, as someone else noted) probably because;

1. He is considered to be black.

2. Therefore he is going to use the most easily remembered/prominent example, of Slavery/Segregation/Civil Rights Movement.

[O'Dannyboy]

Perhaps I should ask one question at a time. He said Blacks are the bottom rung of the economic ladder. Are there not any races in the U.S. that have a smaller population and are equally poor if not moreso, such as the Hispanics or Asians?

[The Lorax]

Perhaps I should ask one question at a time. He said Blacks are the bottom rung of the economic ladder. Are there not any races in the U.S. that have a smaller population and are equally poor if not moreso, such as the Hispanics or Asians?

I did a little research and no, it appears there aren't any minorities that are, on average, smaller AND more poor than blacks. On average, blacks are economically worse off than asians and latinos. Also, There are more latinos (15%) than blacks (13%) and more blacks than asians (4%).

Why is that even relevant, though? Like Ovedya and Hamburgers said, Obama focused on black and white because that's what HE is: black and white. Obviously there are other minorities with problems of their own; the fact he didn't mention them doesn't mean he's denying their existence.

[MorningGlory]

He used primarily black people as an example (although he mentioned other races in his speech, as someone else noted) probably because;

1. He is considered to be black.

2. Therefore he is going to use the most easily remembered/prominent example, of Slavery/Segregation/Civil Rights Movement.

Although Obama often points to slavery and oppression for centuries, he is not the descendant of slaves. His ancestors were not here being oppressed and he was raised by his white mother and grandmother. Where does his understanding of black issues come from, if not from his church? His wife, maybe? I'm not criticizing him for this; I just don't get it.

[MorningGlory]

I don't think so. He's a black man, so obviously he's going to think in those terms.

Why is that obvious? Obama is just as much white as he is black.

[O'Dannyboy]

Perhaps I should ask one question at a time. He said Blacks are the bottom rung of the economic ladder. Are there not any races in the U.S. that have a smaller population and are equally poor if not moreso, such as the Hispanics or Asians?

I did a little research and no, it appears there aren't any minorities that are, on average, smaller AND more poor than blacks. On average, blacks are economically worse off than asians and latinos. Also, There are more latinos (15%) than blacks (13%) and more blacks than asians (4%).

Why is that even relevant, though? Like Ovedya and Hamburgers said, Obama focused on black and white because that's what HE is: black and white. Obviously there are other minorities with problems of their own; the fact he didn't mention them doesn't mean he's denying their existence.

It's important that he was being factual and not just giving us his opinion. He said that blacks are at the bottom of the economic ladder. This means that, according to him, Hispanics, Asians as well as American Indians are better off, financially, than blacks are. I have not done my own research yet, but at this point I do not believe his stamement is accurate. My reason for asking is to discern whether or not he is looking at this problem through a "racial lense" as he put it. The problem of racism in our nation is not restricted to black and white people and so he should not water it down by taking any one races position. If he is looking to unite this nation he needs to speek in a way that includes all of them.

I understand he was trying to come to the rescue of his church and pastor by justifying their hatred. By covering for them he will be helping himself since the association of 20 years is not one he can deny. The question remains. Why, in all his at his church, did he not confront them on the racism issue? If unity is his goal why wait till NOW to decide to do something? The positions and policies of his church are clearly influenced by a deep resentment, and in some cases, hatred for white people. Obama knew this and did and said nothing. Apparently he considers himself the one person who can unite us. If he believes this, where is his proof? What evidence can he provide that he has done it and will continue to do so? So far all I hear is his defense of and justification for hateful feelings towards white people. What I hear is that he believes white people continue to oppress minority races.

I understand that our country is majority white and that our government, understandably, is also majority white. Respectively, the majority of the wealth is also dispursed with similar "economic disparity". This disparity is not exclusive to any race. The slavery, segregation and oppression of the black people in this nation is no great secret. Those were sad times and there are many still alive today lived through it. I can imagine a percentage of those survivors still harbor some resentment. Even so, they cannot deny how far we have come and how good thier children have it compared to how they had it. They should also, having witnessed these changes, understand that this is a new day. We should not hold these new generations accountable for the actions of those long gone. Likewise, we should not expect our children to battle our inner demons for us by dragging them in to it. As long as people point out the distinctions between themselves and someone else, be it color, heritage, social status or economic status they segregate themselves from a part of society. When they view anyone negatively based on those distinctions they segregate themselves. We all live around and associate with those with whom we have the least number of differences. Perhaps some of those differences are a matter of perception, but they are nevertheless important to each of us. It's these perceptions, these inner demons, that we must overcome. When we draw attention to our differences we segregate ourselves from others. A good example of this would be a school yard. The rich or the pretty people hang out together. The athletes, the geeks, the goths, the smokers and everyone iin between are all in their cliques and segregate themselves without any ques from the teachers or administration. There are other qualities/differences/similarities that create division/segragation such as race, wealth or intelligence. My point is that while forced segregation no longer exists segregation persists. Like it or not people will always prefer to live and hang around those with whom they have the least number of differences.

Ok, I'm tired and I'm rambling. We humans are incapable of overcomming this on our own. Our differences are what set us at odds with one another. We are at the mercy of our own emotions and sin nature. Our pride, our jealousy, our lust and our greed are just samples of those things at the heart of our biggest problem. Ourselves. Sadly, the one being (God) in this or any universe that is able to free us of these bonds is being pushed away when we succumb to them. What else I find sad that those we seek to lead us are trying to put more distance between us and our God. In a relative fashion, as God is filtered and screened out of government, so too will we see less of God in those around us.

I'm going to bed and must stop rambling now. You guys have fun with this post and we'll pick it up again tomorrow.

Good night and God bless.

[sharonvinchrist]

I would say that it was a masterful speech that will do nothing to sway voters. I think given the climate in America today the damage has been done and this l-o-n-g speech may have stopped the bleeding but it won't heal the wound. He didn't do what he should have: take responsibility for what his pastor said and answer the question white voters in particular need to have answered: How could you sit in a church like that for 20 years and listen to those hate-filled words?

Thats true how could he just sit there for 20 years and listen to that pastor talk with such hate if my pastor ever talked like that I would have sense enough to leave of course to stay if you agree with it and thats why he stayed I dont see any love coming out of this pastors heart except for certain people ...

[sharonvinchrist]

I would say that it was a masterful speech that will do nothing to sway voters. I think given the climate in America today the damage has been done and this l-o-n-g speech may have stopped the bleeding but it won't heal the wound. He didn't do what he should have: take responsibility for what his pastor said and answer the question white voters in particular need to have answered: How could you sit in a church like that for 20 years and listen to those hate-filled words?

Thats true how could he just sit there for 20 years and listen to that pastor talk with such hate if my pastor ever talked like that I would have sense enough to leave of course to stay if you agree with it and thats why he stayed I dont see any love coming out of this pastors heart except for certain people ...

[sharonvinchrist]

I would say that it was a masterful speech that will do nothing to sway voters. I think given the climate in America today the damage has been done and this l-o-n-g speech may have stopped the bleeding but it won't heal the wound. He didn't do what he should have: take responsibility for what his pastor said and answer the question white voters in particular need to have answered: How could you sit in a church like that for 20 years and listen to those hate-filled words?

Thats true how could he just sit there for 20 years and listen to that pastor talk with such hate if my pastor ever talked like that I would have sense enough to leave of course to stay if you agree with it and thats why he stayed I dont see any love coming out of this pastors heart except for certain people ...