The election of Obama does have symbolic significance, first and foremost for African Americans, but also for other marginalized groups as well. This significance needs to be recognized. However, it also needs to be recognized that the significance of Obama's victory is purely symbolic. Because of the platform on which Obama ran, and because the progressive social movements in the US overwhelmingly fell in line with Obama and the Democrats in this election cycle, the election of Obama represents a victory for the American ruling class in their class war against the American working class.

There is nothing wrong with pointing this out in the wake of the Obama victory. While racist critiques of Obama need to be opposed, Obama does not deserve immunity from all criticisms during the period following his election, simply because he is Africna-American. The American ruling class does not deserve the immunity from criticism that such an approach would grant them.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Left Turn ]

I worked on the Obama campaign and as an American, I am really excited about his victory. Moreover, from what I have read on babble, I think that many of the posters who have criticized Obama from the left lack a sense of the pragmatic realities of U.S. politics. I think they have also failed to fully grasp the "symbolic significance," as you put it, that a nation originally founded on slavery has actually elected a black president.

The symbolic significance doesn't really help the average person of colour in the US, aside from maybe another person of colour has the opportunity and the support from the ruling class to run for President because (s?)he won't have to deal with that "Is America ready" shit. But other than that, the material conditions of people on the ground won't improve any just because of some symbolism.

Now for the first time ever a black man has been permitted by the white male capitalist establishment in the United States to assume the most powerful political position in the country. This is also of great symbolic importance.

What will be Obomba's legacy for African-Americans? It remains to be seen whether it will be any different from Kim Campbell's legacy for Canadian women.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left Turn:
There seems to be an opinion held by a lot of more liberal minded babblers...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pogge:
Name three.

---

I could, however, name at least one babbler who thinks that white males who criticize Obomba from the left are merely doing so because they fear that he is a threat to white male hegemony, and that their criticisms can therefore be dismissed out of hand. That, to my mind, is perilously close to accusations of racism and seeking to preserve white privilege.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
I could, however, name at least one babbler who thinks that white males who criticize Obomba (sic) from the left are merely doing so because they fear that he is a threat to white male hegemony, and that their criticisms can therefore be dismissed out of hand.

---

But I have no truck with bourgeois politics, or USian exceptionalism. I have close ties with militants in the US, and I am well aware both of the searing wound racism is there for any working class movement or working class politics.

But working class politics means breaking with capitalist parties, eh? It saddens me to see people who were on the left falling into backing the party that got the US into Vietnam.

Hey Hey LBJ
How many kids have you killed today?

quote:

---

Originally posted by pogge:
That has nothing to do with what I posted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Now you respond with personal insults when someone complies with your request.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pogge:
You didn't respond to the question I asked.

---

I answered your question. You just didn't like the answer. I didn't try to put any words into your mouth at all. I take full responsibility for all the words I posted in that post.

quote:

---

You do that all the time and that's why I mostly avoid you. It's a practice I believe I'll resume.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
... bien plus loin que ce qu'avait autorisé la nomination de Clarence Campbell...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Ce qui frappe autour d'Obama, c'est la projection délirante que les gens font au sujet de sa mince victoire (6% du vote, surtout de nouveaux électeurs). Pour les Noirs, je comprends l'importance de ce passage, après des siècles d'esclavage, de discrimination et de mépris qui continuent. En fait, leur émotion n'est pas très différente des applaudissements de la collectivité noire américaine quand O.J. Simpson a été acquitté il y a 12 ans. Pour une fois, un Noir échappait au laminoir du racisme, un Noir "gagnait" contre le système blanc, même si tout le monde savait que c'était un assassin. Sa victoire rachetait le meurtre de tous les autres, condamnés d'avance à cause de la couleur de leur peau ou envoyés comme chair à canon au Vietnam.
Donc, ce n'est pas la qualité d'Obama qui a été réellement applaudie - c'est un conservateur populiste avec de bons speechwriters - mais bien un certain recul du racisme et l'avancée des espoirs du peuple afro-américain, bien plus loin que ce qu'avait autorisé la nomination de Clarence Campbell, Colin Powell ou Condoleeza Rice.
Mais il y a autre chose. Beaucoup de Blancs se réjouissent, malgré leur racisme - maintenant déplacé sur les Arabes -, du succès d'Obama. Pourquoi? Parce que la perspective d'un changement de cap nous déculpabilise. Elle nous rassure que ces États-Unis, dont nous tettons la culture et les valeurs comme un porcelet sa mère, ne sont pas ces fascistes finis qui emprisonnent des adolescents, bafouent les conventions internationales, torturent aux quatre coins de planète, écrasent des populations civiles sous les bombes, polluent la planète sans dérougir et sont en train de jeter à terre notre avenir économique en engraissant leurs banquiers et p.d.g. d'entreprises.
La mode Obama, c'est le retour d'un sourire sur le visage du père Fouettard, un leader charismatique pour faire passer la pilule. On veut tellement croire à une moralité des États-Unis - pour qu'ils n'aillent pas plus loin dans l'immoralité - qu'on affirme n'importe quoi, alors même que l'homme au sourire crédible annonce l'escalade des frappes américaines contre l'Afghanistan, le Pakistan, l'Iran?...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pogge:

Name three. Posts like this that pretend to counter some fictitious position held by "babblers" that remain unnamed are getting beyond tedious. This is baiting. In other words, your premise is dishonest.

---

This has been demonstrated throughout the campaign where he has tilted further and further to the right when he came under attack by the corporate media or his own right-wing opponents. Now that he faces the toughest prospects of any incoming president since the great depression, we will see his true colours.

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Thanks. I corrected that and e-mailed the piece to th dailies. (yeah, Mr. Campbell is still stuck in our collective throat...)

---

Martin, please - pretty please - when you have time, do an English version. I'd do it myself, but I don't want to miss any of the flavour.

All our previous disagreements are forgotten. Do it! You owe it to babble.

quote:

---

The intellectuals who, in the name of ‘realism’, support a politician who publicly and openly embraces new wars, billionaire bailouts and for profit, private sector-run health programs are repudiating their own claims as ‘responsible critics’. They are what C. Wright Mills called ‘crackpot realists’, abdicating their responsibility as critical intellectuals. In purporting to support the ‘lesser evil’ they are promoting the ‘greater evil’: The continuation of four more years of deepening recession, colonial wars and popular alienation. Moreover, they are allies of the mass media, major parties and the legal system which has marginalized or outright excluded the alternative candidates, Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney, who do speak out and oppose the war, the pro-Wall Street bailouts and propose genuine large-scale public investment in the domestic economy, a universal single payer health program, sustainable and pro-environment economic policies and large-scale, long-term income redistributive policies.

What is crass and unacceptable is the argument of these intellectuals, (an insignificant pimple on the Democratic donkey’s rear-end) that for a single moment believe that their ‘critical support’ of the Obama political machine will open space for radical ideas. The Zionists and civilian militarists totally control Obama’s war policy in the Middle East: There will be no space for peace with Iran, Palestine, Pakistan, Afghanistan or Iraq. Wall Street controls the Obama’s financial policy: There will be no space for some Cambridge progressive to sneak in a handout for families losing their homes.

If multi-million trade union treasuries have spent a hundred million dollars on each presidential campaign have failed to secure a single piece of progressive legislation in over 50 years, isn’t it delusional for our progressive ‘public intellectuals’ to imagine that they, in their splendid organizational isolation, can ‘pressure’ President Obama to renounce his advisers, backers and public defense of military escalation, to see his way to peace with Iran and to promote social justice for our workers and unemployed?

---

What can we hope for? The main thing is the clean up of DOJ. That will trigger the enfranchisement of a lot of people currently shut out of voting.

The shit may have hit the fan with enough force in the economy to send some people to jail and make it clear what is happening there. With luck Obama may be forced to go that route.

So that's it then right? We're all fucked, and there's no pointing in even trying? We may as well just all accept that we are under control. Change is just not possible.

quote:

---

Change is just not possible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:
Nader and McKinney are saying great things--

---

quote:

---

but they're running in the same electoral system as Obama and McCain. What level of support do you think the Green party can get before being co opted?

---

quote:

---

how can i look at Nader and McKinney as any kind of solution?

---

Moreover, when Nader is on Fox news spewing racist trash at Obama, why would one to look there anyway?

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Don't know anout McKinny, but Nader is anyway, "great things" like calling Obama "Uncle Tom".

---

quote:

---

Try reading what Nader actually said rather than hearing what Fox News wanted you to hear:

Fox News: Guess who’s here? The Independent party candidate, Ralph Nader. This is his second run for the Presidency since he played spoiler in the close 2000 contest. This year he was on the ballot in 45 states plus D.C. This year he was polling about 1-percent. Ralph, you spoke to Fox News Radio’s Houston affiliate today, and said this:

Ralph Nader: To put it very simply, he is our first African American president; or he will be. And we wish him well. But his choice, basically, is whether he’s going to be Uncle Sam for the people of this country, or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations.

---

Yep, I did read that yet again, and just as it did the couple other times I read it, it has Nader using a racist term in respect to Obama.

quote:

---

Uncle Tom is a pejorative for a black person who is perceived by others as behaving in a subservient manner to White American authority figures, or as seeking ingratiation with them by way of unnecessary accommodation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
This is a scurrilous lie promulgated by Faux News.

Interesting to see you acting as their mouthpiece here.

---

His actual words:

But his choice, basically, is whether he’s going to be Uncle Sam for the people of this country, or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations.

Not exactly a whole lot better. It was still a completely asshole and idiotic way to convey his message.

The point is, stuff like this isn't going to win you any favor and it's not the first time he's acted and sounded like a arrogant jerk.
His message is good and sound, delivery...not so great.
Might be appealing to some because of him 'sticking it to the man and speaking the truth'

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
Conditionally, and I suspect Nader knows how insulting it is, which is kind of his point.

Nader's being a little formally logical in his language, but it seems clear that it is not having the effect he wants (which is for Obama NOT to be an Uncle Tom).

---

He lost my respect when he walked away from actually trying to build a third force in American politics, and ran a simple vanity campaign with no eye to the future.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Well, the cheerleaders for the Faux News school of falsification are out in force tonight.

---

Can you actually watch a video? Like see and hear things with your own eyes? Because I can and unless you are suggesting that Faux News used CGR and special effects to 'fake' what he said, he said it.
How in the heck is that being false? Did he say those comments or not?

Nice strawman though or maybe spin is a better word.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: ElizaQ ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:
Nader's statement is racist. He wouldn't have said it about a white President-Elect. Period.

---

Why not? If I wanted to be really insulting in describing someone from an oppressed group sucking up to power that's the term I would use.

I think it was meant to hurt. And I think Obama was meant to hear it, as I am sure he did. But really, who else in the entire American political sphere is positioned to make that point, and get coverage on on Faux news, or anywhere?

Now, I would certainly not have said anything at all like that, but on the other hand, I think that Nader believed that the value of the political point, and gaining the platform to make it, outweighed othe considerations, and I am absolutely sure it did not come from a racist place, but from an old guard politician who is on the way out, and had one last opportunity to make a clear statement about the nature of race and racism in America and its relationship capitalism, in a sea of self-congratulation, fireworks and spectacle.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:

Why not? If I wanted to be really insulting in describing someone from an oppressed group sucking up to power that's the term I would use.

Is there a race neutral term with the same meaning that is anywhere near as insulting?

---

So then my question which is an issue that always comes up here, how 'progressive' is the use of 'ironic' racism to make a point?

quote:

---

Is there a race neutral term with the same meaning that is anywhere near as insulting?

---

I note in a quick bio of Nader ( I am becomming a wikiholic) that Nader's resume doesn't include anything on equal rights activism. But on the other hand, the intent of his consumer activism wasn't to limit it to white people, or wealthy people.

It was for everyone.

Nor does it say who Nader hires for his various Non Profit organizations, whether he is racist in that he only hires a certain race, or systematically excludes a certain race.

So, I don't know if Ralph Nader is a racist or not-- and I certainly wouldn't sum up a man's character based soley on his worst moment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:
How about "suck up"? Toady? Stooge? Pawn? Sell-out? Bought and paid for? Corporate hack? Tool? Useful idiot?

Anything but racist insults?

---

Those are useful, but, frankly, don't have the insult level. Racism is probably part of that equation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:
Speaking for myself, I have never called Nader a racist. I deplored a racist statement that he made.

---

Race has been central to the theme of the entire campaign. In its positive cast it has been a symbolic struggle for the full enfranchisement of Black Americans, and this was very much the tenor of the whole election night coverage, even that coming from the defeated side. The establishment seems full prepared to rally round and use the momentum of this victory for Black people in the US, and make it their own.

In my view, Nader flipped the equation over to expose that reality. And I don't think anyone else was really positioned to do so, black or white.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Using racist terms to get there is not.

quote:

---

Here's another example of the American media playing childish games with semantics in order to manipulate the public. But, if the comment sections of left wing blogs indicates anything it is that this kind of thing works astoundingly well.

It makes me sad for the American people. There is so much truth in what Nader says but they just can't get past his perceived role as "spoiler" in elections where the two parties agree on what to debate and how to be different.

It also saddens me that people are so stupid these days. The last example of this media manipulation aptly occurred when Obama said that the Sarah Palin's nomination was to the McCain campaign like "putting lipstick on a pig." The fine folks over at Fox News claimed he was calling Sarah Palin a pig!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:
Speaking for myself, I have never called Nader a racist. I deplored a racist statement that he made.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Yes, of course, the right wing assholes of Faux News and other media are the ultimate arbiters of what is and isn't racist, and can always be counted upon to expose racism wherever it may be lurking!

---

Spector. Hi. I'm Coyote. You might remember me: we've posted on the same board for years. You might also remember that I don't base my opinions on what Fox News says. Shockingly, I come to my own judgement on issues. On this one, I think the statement is racist because of the racism contained within it, not because Fox News jumped on it. You think it's not racist because, I guess, Fox News says it is.

That's your perogative. But quit telling me why I think what I think. I've been pretty effin' consistent my entire LIFE what I think about playing with racist and sexist stereotypes by the Left. I'm against it. Because of the racism/sexism.

Felt it to be offensive myself, but hey, I'm just a mutt like Obama, what does my gut know?

Of course I heard right-wing assholes like Limbaugh say the exact same thing, and it bothered me then too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:
Spector. Hi. I'm Coyote. You might remember me: we've posted on the same board for years.

---

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:
Of course right wing assholes are going to jump on a left winger saying something racist.

All the more reason NOT TO SAY SOMETHING RACIST.

---

Well, I am not entirely sure it was racist. The statement was:

"Barak Obama can be Uncle Sam for Americans, or Uncle Tom for the corporations."

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
It saddens me, really, that people who consider themselves progressive would fall for this crap.

---

It saddens me really that people that consider themselves progressives would think that other people who consider themselves progressives can't actually hear or read something with their own eyes and use there own brains to make up there own minds.

Who here read or heard the right wingnut spin and said, "Oh golly gee. Look at that. I never would have considered it that way unless you saintly people told me too. You are so right. I am corrected' Hands anyone?

Spector you can keep spinning all you want that everyone here is only parroting Faux news if it makes you feel better but that doesn't make it true.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Yeah, I remember you.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

---

Ooh, you're so clever!

quote:

---

It makes me sad for the American people. There is so much truth in what Nader says but they just can't get past his perceived role as "spoiler" in elections where the two parties agree on what to debate and how to be different.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

It's defintely provocative and offensive, and plays on the ever present theme of black enfranchisement, but that was a good portion of the Obama election theme anyway. But Nader did not say that "Barak Obama was an Uncle Tom".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:
If it's not racist, Cue, what's offensive about it?

---

It's offensive in the same manner as making an objection at a wedding is offensive, or saying the King has no clothes. But he did not say the King has no clothes, he said the King can get a new tailor or stick with the ones he has.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

BTW, pardon my ignorance, but what is the politically correct term for a black person who does the bidding of white corporate America to the detriment of his fellow African-Americans?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

It's offensive in the same manner as making an objection at a wedding is offensive.

---

Yeah, i agree, i think the term you used in the other thread was "tasteless".

quote:

---

Originally posted by djelimon:
Office worker

---

You can't think of an appropriate answer to my original question, I take it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:
Speaking for myself, I have never called Nader a racist. I deplored a racist statement that he made.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by djelimon:

Office worker

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:

Yeah, i agree, i think the term you used in the other thread was "tasteless".

Nader does not know how to reach people anymore.

---

Well all I can say is this thread is nearing a hundred posts. And that you only have one opportunity to make an objection at a wedding.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Well, I looked and I never saw anyone, myself included, say "Nader is racist."

---

Then of course there was this thread, where you called Nader a "racist shit".

[edited to fix link]

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

Assuming that all white corporations work to the detriment of African Americans (which I assumed you assumed) then yes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
You said his words were racist. Big difference.

---

Well there is difference but that really doesn't speak to the main reason why the whole thing came up with in the first place. Which had to do with people, progressives and his support or non-support for him.

I don't think he's racist because of it.

I just think it was an absolutely idiotic and stupid thing to say. It's actually perfect example of how using 'ironic' racism can totally backfire and make a person look like an ass.

And in defence of it we've had, 'well it's just right wing spin' and just the same that Howard Stern does to create controversy so maybe it's okay.
That really helps. Last I checked Howard stern was not professing to be anywhere near progressive and not trying to be a progressive political movement.

quote:

---

If you can't answer my original question there's no point in engaging in idle banter with you about "which corporations".

---

Au contraire - anyone who works in an office by definition furthers the agenda of a corporation.

I can tell you that in the black Jamaican community, you call these people "Office workers". It's not considered selling out to work for Big Money.

Unless you mean "politicians".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Well, I remember both of you.

---

The gold is in Sad Hill Cemetary, in the grave marked "Unknown".

quote:

---

Originally posted by djelimon:
I'm still trying to figure out how Obama, with his history of not working for corporations but doing civil rights law and community organizing fits into all this, but nevertheless I find your interpretation of this issue fascinating, if puzzling.

---

What he said was that Obomba's choice, "is whether he’s going to be Uncle Sam for the people of this country, or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations." One or the other - it's Obomba's choice.

That's how the reference to corporations "fits into this".

According to the accepted meaning of the epithet, Nader is suggesting that one way Obomba could possibly go is to make unnecessary accommodation with the giant corporations of Amerika to the detriment of his fellow African-Americans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:

I just what to know how he could have said the same thing without using that term, while still retaining the connotation of turning his back on his fellow African-Americans. I suspect Uncle Tom is the perfect term to use for that purpose.[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ElizaQ:
He wasn't talking about just African Americans.

---

quote:

---

Anyone who has worked in the areas of civil rights, economic justice, and health and safety over the decades knows that whenever minority candidates are elected to legislative offices, their minority constituents remain wary regarding whether the entrenched power structures are affecting these self-avowed representatives, or whether the reverse is occurring – that is, they are standing up to the corporate supremacists. All political pioneers have to answer this question as they move into these positions of trust. Unfortunately, as many people of color – struggling through the day in often desperate circumstances – know from the lessons of history, there are more than a few times when they are let down by a surrender to the rich and powerful – an obeisance that has its vernacular. - Nader

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
By using the term Uncle Tom, he was. Otherwise the term makes no sense at all.

---

quote:

---

It's not just a general pejorative term; it has a specific connotation. An Uncle Tom is an African-American who is a traitor to his own race. Nader knew what it means. Apparently many babblers don't

---

I know what Uncle Tom means. It's considered a slur, used by mostly people in the African American communities to speak about other African Americans, as an insult with connitations of being a sell-out and a race traitor. No problems in getting that part.

Read his comments again, he said, " Uncle Sam for the people of this country, or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations."

I read it as ..."Will you stand with the American people with their best interests or be a traitor and sell out for the corporations'

So now your suggesting that no, that 'people of this country' actually means African American people of this country only? And was only talking to African American people?

quote:

---

Still, the Democratic presidential candidates refused to take a stand against WHINSEC. In fact, the only two Democrats who expressed opposition to the institution were long shots Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich (on the Republican side, Ron Paul said he too would shutter WHINSEC)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
By using the term Uncle Tom, he was. Otherwise the term makes no sense at all. It's not just a general pejorative term; it has a specific connotation. An Uncle Tom is an African-American who is a traitor to his own race. Nader knew what it means. Apparently many babblers don't.

---

Moreover, I suspect you do not realize you are arguing that Nader is a "racist shit", as I noted right after I had first heard about it.

Now, I agree, it is not just a general perjorative. And when a white person uses a racially charged perjorative for a descriptor of a black person, or even about future supposed/assumed/presumed actions of that person, that have NOT yet even come close to occuring, and labels said person with it, it is racist speech. And contrary to other's opinions here, it is not Nader's "pre-emptive", or even post event call to make.

It is a WHITE man pre-judging, or making potential inferences, based upon the determinents of race, and setting a conceptual lens/framework, from which to slant perceptions prior to any actual occurances happening. IMV, it is dangerously close to race baiting.

I am reminded of the brouhaha over Mallick calling Palin's pregnant daughter "pram faced" and the indignant cries against her and her progressiveness here, because she dared to make such a comment in her own column. But now, when we have a clear racially charged pejorative in play, by the allegedly most progressive politician in the USA, it is supposedly acceptable, and indeed non-racist, and according to some could actually be progressive discourse to get a deeper point/message across. Personally, I think it is an example of white male privilege that as of yet, or even still, knows no bounds, and not so much 100% racism.

Though Nader was being a racist shit when he said that, his words were racially charged, and they contained a racially biased perjorative, used by the black community itslef, not by whites, whether or not he is extremely racist in his mental constructs is perhaps only known to himself. Note, I use the word extremely, because I believe that most whites are racist, against any given race differing from whites according to one's own personal biases, to greater and lesser degrees, including myself. That is why racism, and racial biases still exist, eh!

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Now you're just being obtuse. I'm done trying to explain the obvious to a closed mind.

---

Oh get off your martyr podium. Your apologist explanations are not doing him any favors. Ditto on the closed mind insult it goes both ways here. I was just being nice and not actually saying it.

I never had a problem with the meaning of the actual message. Go back and read mine and others comments.
It's not hard one to figure out. It actually took a whole split second.

Guess what? I think he was right and that it was perfectly valid and good question. Comprede? Can you actually understand that and get it through that closed thick skull? Hello?
Oh hey this is fun....not really, but like begets like I guess.

My issue and others, who by the way actually do get the message behind the words as well...funny that... is the choice of words and just the general assholly time he chose to use them. Yes, yes use a racially charged ephitet, that has different meanings to different people, in perhaps a witty and intellectual way I'll give him that much...just hours after the black guy gets elected. Smart one buddy.

And then wonder why people go wtf?

You can agree with him fine, and think that that's just a fine and dandy way to get your message out because hey, he's radical and so progressive blah blah, but don't think that just because other progressive think that it was pretty shitty that it's because we just don't "Get it" or are *gasp* 'closed minded' and aren't capable of understanding Nadars great intellectual insight.

quote:

---

Well, maybe you should try reading what Nader said before you start calling him a racist.

---

I'd like a source wherein I called him a racist (I already Googled it)

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: djelimon ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

... used by the black community itslef, not by whites, whether or not he is extremely racist in his mental constructs is perhaps only known to himself.

---

Yeah I thought about bringing that point up, that it was a white guy using what is most commonly used only by the black community and the racial issues with doing that, but I figured it might get to complicated, trying to explain the nuances of how that plays out.

According to Spector he WAS just talking TO the black community only...so basically he was saying hey you black folks out there you'd better watch out for this black guy he might be like one of your Uncle Toms!

This commentary would have been much better voiced by radical left black activists, but unfortunately, those of Nader's generation who might have made such statements, have been effectively marginalized in one way or another.

Quite frankly, this comment by Nader, and the shocked brouhaha that accompanies it fits right in the same category as the infamous "the chickens have come home to roost" statement made by Malcolm X, on the day of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, or Sunera Thobani's infamous "the hands of the US are covered in blood" comment after 9-11.

The reaction is similar, and the outrage histrionics that accompany them add to the impression that the comments struck a nerve, in such a way that gives the comments more poignant significance than they actually warrant.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
[QB]It's quite clear he is inverting the race paradigm that has been central to the whole Obama campaign and expressing an idea about class divisions in the black community that has been quite frequently expressed by radical black activists. I think if Obama is going to run and be applauded using the motif of black empowerment, Nader's comments are legitimized by their use of this theme, and Nader is picking up on it.

---

quote:

---

This commentary would have been much better voiced by radical left black activists, but unfortunately, those of Nader's generation who might have made such statements, have been effectively marginalized in one way or another.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ElizaQ:

Um...so since the black folks who 'may' be feeling that way can't speak for themselves Nadar has too? Is that what I'm reading here? Okay...well that makes it okay then. He was just helping. Maybe he actually checked with some first.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Obama and the School of the Americas

---

quote:

---

On the other hand, try as he might to skirt the issue, Obama will soon be obliged to take a clearer stand on WHINSEC. That's because the House recently approved the McGovern-Sestak-Bishop amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for 2009. The amendment obliges WHINSEC to publicly release the names, rank, country of origin, courses, and dates of attendance of the school's graduates and instructors.

Legislators pressed for the measure because in recent years WHINSEC has withheld vital information that would have helped to identify the perpetrators of massacres, targeted assassinations, and human rights abuses committed in Latin America. In a resounding defeat for the Pentagon, the measure was approved by a vote of 220 to 189. The amendment now heads to the Senate where all eyes will be on Obama.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

No I am saying that the people who might say such things are dead, in jail, and/or marginalzied to such an extent that they would not have been given the interview that originally started this off.

---

I definitely agree that Nader was intentionally walking the line for effect, but there was also a point in there that was not getting a lot of play in the media, and as far as I can tell Nader is the only person to get that point into a sound bite on a major network, in what is a sea of umitigated self-congratulation and applause, not the least of which is coming from a lot of white liberal Americans patting themselves on the back for doing the "good deed".

I think this would be a discussion much better served by actually referencing African-American reaction to his statement, and previous statements, and not just those from those people who are African Americans in the establishment.

I don't see a lot of that here, and rather than bantering back and forth, about what we think is the issue, we might as well spend this time blogging around and informing ourselves on what is actually being said by Black Americans on this topic.

I have been doing some of this already, and while its pretty clear that a substantial number of Black Americans were very offended by earlier Nader's statements that Obama was "talking white", some came out to say that they understood this statement and even agreed with it. At least that is what was being said on the blogs. One misconception about the "talking white" statement that seemed prevalent, was that when Nader was talking about Obama "talking white" he did not mean that Obama should be using ghetto talk, instead of speaking as the college educated man that he is. Were that what he meant, the offence would be quite obviously just. But Nader's "talking white" statement is not about how Obama speaks, it is about the interests that Obama is speaking for: "The white power structure," as one blogger pointed out.

It's a sixites thing. Nader is... well... a sixties guy, really.

Amid the wash of general enthusiasm for Obama a few voices came out to point the nuances of Nader's views, but they were a small minority, and they were readily attacked by the majority. Earlier, I pointed out that there might be some difficulty for more radical voices in the Black community to make less than enthusiastic statements about Obama, and my reading confirmed this for me. Even the usually up-front, and established Jesse Jackson ended up appologizing for some negative comments he made about Obama.

I don't really know if Nader is the right person to be pushing the buttons that he is pushing, but it seems to me that there are very few people out there right now in a position to do so, and regardless of that fact, I think Nader made a valuable point, regardless of how it came out.

J.D. opined:

quote:

---

I think Nadar is an idiot who has a point. Obama can’t keep it too real cause it isn’t PC (Politically Correct). He’s playing the game doing what he’s got to do. I support Obama, but don’t be fooled. He’s a politician and that means you cannot say what you truly believe, ’cause white folks ain’t hearing it.

---

Flo said:

quote:

---

I have to disagree with everyone here–except dee. I think Sharpton, Dyson and most of this forum missed Nader’s point. He wasn’t talking about vernacular or speech cadence. He was saying that by avoiding issues plaguing a disproportionately black and poor urban group, he was pandering to the fragile ego of the white educated middle class he hopes will vote for him. I think Nader was pointing this out because he feels Obama is trying not to seem like a black candidate to his white voters for fear his fate will mimic that of unsuccessful pro-black in-your-face previous candidates like Jackson. What is ironic about this is that his black voter base understands and accepts this, but it does seem like less of a “change from routine politics” to avoid the needs of your most loyal group of supporters–black Americans.

That having been said, I do support Obama and have been an avid fan since I read his first book long before his 2004 speech and ascension to fame. I’m not trying to be mean, but I just don’t think anyone on the forum–except dee–actually took time to read the comments, you just saw the headline “talk white” and ran with your preconceived notions about the content of his comments. We all skim read and jump to conclusions from time to time. This time you are in good company. Sharpton and Dyson apparently did the same thing, except now they sound foolish and misinformed in press clips instead of just on a BET.com forum.

---

Nader Accuses Obama of ‘Talking White’

What concerns me more about Nader's statement, is not the Uncle Tom statement, but the statement that we should hold Obama to a "higher standard", and I frankly don't get that, myself. Why because he is black? Huh?

He will be the president of the United States, and unless some miracle happens, holding the president of the United States to a higher standard still requires that I put my big rubber boots on and get ready to crawl around the sewers of Washington.

Fortunately, we do not have to rely only on Ralph Nader for commentary on Barak Obama, and his relationship to the "white power structure", and we can find other voices from within the African American community who can give us some different perspectives:

quote:

---

Either Obama and the pundits don’t love Hispanics or there’s more money and political opportunity in exhorting blacks. Racist appeals played a role in the election of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Both Bushes and even Clinton, but there is such euphoria among many African Americans about the possibility of a black presidency that his dumping of a bunch of lazy clichés on them will be forgiven. They will forgive him for throwing them under the bus as he did Rev. Wright, whose criticism of American foreign policy and remarks about the toxic attacks on the inner city were based upon facts. He provided his corporate media critics with a bibliography, but they apparently were too busy paling around with the people whom they cover to read it.

Blacks will overlook Obama’s snubbing of the distinguished panel of black educators politicians and intellectuals who appear on Tavis Smiley’ annual “State of the Black Union, ” and overlook the fact that he found the time to appear before AIPAC where he made belligerent threats against Arab nations and even promised Israel an undivided Jerusalem, he got so carried away, which undercuts a notion held by Maureen Dowd, and Susan Faludi that he is the feminine candidate. When it comes to seeking Jewish votes and putting down black men, in order to obtain votes from white male conservatives, he can become John Wayne.

---

Did this piece by Ishmael Reed,Obama Scolds Black Fathers, Gets Bounce in Polls , surface at any time during this discussion?

[ 09 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ElizaQ:

I tried to find out where this stands now and what Obama's response was to it. Not sure it's been to the Senate yet.

---

Forty-Two Democrats Vote to Keep School of the Americas Open Juin 2007

I guess those are the two year guys in the lower house

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Obama in his acceptance speech already lowered the bar. He is already calling for his supporters to be patient, to wait, to give him a pass, to defer their demands to a later date. He said that the change that they seek may not come even during his first term. He is already compromising and silencing the will of the people. He will tell them, wait, wait, wait as they fall deeper and deeper into desperation. He will tell them wait, wait, wait, as Palestinians are continually cleansed from their ancestral lands. He will tell them wait, wait, wait as the Congo slides into complete chaos. He will tell them wait, wait, wait as he bombs Pakistan and Afghanistan. He will tell them wait, wait, wait as he maintains permanent "advisory" forces and mercenaries in Iraq.

And when they cannot wait any longer, he will betray them even more deeply. When black people demand that he listen, he will shut the door on them. And as houses are taken away, infrastructure crumbles and the coffers of this nation are drained more and more by the machine of war, he will call for patience. He will give away the fruits of the work of those who own this nation to those who wish to dominate it even more fully, those who bought him.

And as Ralph Nader asked on election night, will he be Uncle Sam or Uncle Tom? The answer is clear: he will do as all Toms have done throughout history and urge patience as master steals from their pockets, ruins their lives and shackles them to a system that vampirically feeds on them, giving them just enough to be thankful for not killing them directly.

---

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

All of the blacks and Hispanics who have been driven out of New York, Oakland, and San Francisco, as a result of the policies of ethnic cleansing, advocated by Jerry Brown, Giuliani and Newsom, will be invited to return. The banks that aimed toxic mortgage loans to blacks and Hispanics, who would have qualified for conventional loans had they been white, will halt the foreclosure process and renegotiate these loans. CEOs on Wall Street will forego bonuses and golden parachutes. Sales conferences
will be held at Day’s Inn. For rent signs will go up on K street. The American Enterprise will close its doors.

The right will stop using worn out phrases like “ political correctness, ’ and victimization” and hire Sean “Puffy” Combs to provide them with some hip language.

An Obama administration will launch the Obama doctrine, which will advocate friendly aggression and soft diplomacy in Africa, Asia the Middle East and other global spots where American forces are killing people. These trouble spots wll be inundated with artists, writers, dancers and musicians, engineers, doctors and people who speak their languages.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ElizaQ:

His actual words:

But his choice, basically, is whether he’s going to be Uncle Sam for the people of this country, or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations.

---

For the sake of posterity, and as the likely thread closer, even though it does not make much difference, his actual words were:

quote:

---

"But his choice, basically, is whether he’s going to be Uncle Sam for the people of this country, or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations, which are driving America into the ground."

---