01 March 2007

Black Enough?

I first ran across an article exploring this particular brand of idiocy right where I would have expected it, in the San Francisco Chronicle, but now the paper of idiotic record has inflated it into a Serious Issue. I'm referring, of course, to the Guardian's take on "Is Obama Black Enough?"

While I don't think they ever get around to specifying just how black is "enough," what I found fascinating was the article's implication - nay, assumption - that having an Ivy League education, being well-spoken, and actually liking America makes him somehow not "authentically" black. The author goes on to list further strikes against Obama's blackness: he's "articulate" and "clean." You'd think such an assessment was compiled by an unrepentant redneck, but this being Guardian-land, of course it's not; the writer is the newspaper's American correspondent and resident race-baiter, Garry Younge, who himself is black.

Well, not quite black; like Obama, Younge is actually half-white, and, if I'm not mistaken, suffers the further embarrassment of having some American roots, but he's made a valiant effort to overcome these liabilities by becoming a strident proponent of black identity politics and a default America-basher. You get the idea from his article that he actually would like to support Obama, but feels the need to apologise to his "genuinely" black readership for doing so. Life would be so much easier for Garry if racist America would only embrace a "real" black candidate, i.e., a fast-talking, lying, cheating hustler of the Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson ilk. Ah well, life's full of difficult choices, isn't it.

P.S. As someone who's more or less inclined to support Obama myself, I was saddened to learn that he's "a vocal supporter of affirmative action." That, coupled with his lack of a realistic solution to the Iraqi debacle (apart from recycling a Vietnam-era "Bring The Boys Home Now" mantra) makes me a lot less inclined in his direction. I'll still choose him in a heartbeat over the odious Hillary Clinton when it comes to primary time, but it might be a bit harder to pull the lever for him when the national election comes around.

13 comments:

Psmith said...

By the time of a national election, your vote won't matter anyway. Whether you're voting in NY or CA, I think we all know where the state's electoral votes are going.

Anna Louise said...

I recently bought a book by Younge - a comilation of his articles over the past few years. In one article it mentioned that he was 18 before he could call himself British as he felt as a youngster he couldnt be both - he was black not british. And now, reading what he says about Obama perhaps shows Younge has never come to terms with who he his, instead he writes about others (who are probably capable of deciding for themselves how black they are) as if there personal fortunes or misfortunes degrade their race.

Josh in Seattle said...

Your boy Rudy is shitting the bed at every turn.

1. appointing "traditionalist" judges
2. new york style gun control not ok for america at large
3. pro larger troop surge

Anonymous said...

I'm a Democrat and I'd rather have Hillary or even McCain than Obama. Obama has skeleton's in his closet and has exchanged complete acquiescence to the American Jewish party line on Israel for political and media support.

Not that Hillary or McCain haven't, but they are independently popular and well-known (and intellectually and morally strong) enough to not succumb to too much pressure from that group, lip service to the contrary notwithstanding.

mike from st. louis said...

now we can finally see where "anonymous" stands -- for him, everything comes down to the evil and manipulative "american jewish party." this, i am sure, is not naked anti-semitism, but instead some kind of greater understanding of the nefarious goals of said "party," which i am sure he or she will now explain, longwindedly, with as much condescension as one who uses an apostrophe to pluralize "skeletons" can manage.

now that your motivating hatred has been revealed, why not remove the cowardly cloak of anonymousness? i mean, cowardly jew-bashing is so passe.

jb said...

When I was living in Atlanta in the mid nineties, this was a legimate issue in almost every city wide race. People (as in the press, other candidates, public officials, business leaders) had no compunction about calling into question how black this guy or that guy was. It was bizarre from my perspective, but it happened.

Anonymous said...

Mike,

Is anyone who alleges that a Jewish person or group of Jewish persons has done anything wrong or objectionable an anti-Semite? That seems to be the crux of your stance. For all you know, I could be Jewish myself.

Notwithstanding your patronizing and formulaic cry of "anti-semitism" at the first sight of any criticism towards the Israel lobby in this country, I will refer you to a very informative and cogent analysis right on this point, written by two professors at the Harvard John F. Kennedy School of Government, which, last I checked, was not seeking the eradication of world Jewry.

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011

Interview with the authors, Steven Walt and John Mearsheimer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIPv298fdRY&NR

Oh, and before you reflexively play the anti-Semitism card once again, mind the fact that at least one of the authors is himself Jewish.

mike from st. louis said...

of course, the "he's jewish so he cannot possibly be anti-semitic" card. so tired. this particular diatribe has already been discredited all over the place. perhaps not in your weird little ivory tower, however?

ironic that you should use terms like "patronizing" and "formulaic" in your pathetic rant. and, naturally, the "well, i can criticize israel and not be anti-semitic" blast. while it is true that this is possible, in your case this is just not so.

please own it. you can't have it both ways. you want to bash the "american jewish party line," and yet not take responsiblity for your naked hatred of all things jewish.

i love the "how can you tell i'm not jewish" line, because it's wholly irrelevant. if you are jewish, that makes you a very useful idiot, doesn't it? i mean, who better the crow anti-jew (there, like that better?) line -- the worldwide consipiracy, the machinations behind american politics -- than a jew himself!

i suspect you are not jewish, because if you were, you would already know this. wait. given your consistently myopic and one-note "contributions" to larry's blog, you may actually be.

on the other hand, who cares? you choose to stay "anonymous," rather than butch up behind your inflammatory screeds, so what does it matter who you are?

aryan nation said...

dude, give him a break. so he hates jews. doesn't everyone?

Anonymous said...

How could I have overlooked this fact which explains everything! Why....everyone's simply an anti-Semite!

There's no problem, here. Just anti-Semites running all around, from Larry's blog to Harvard's JFK School of Government.

So the supposed anti-Jewish anti-Semites are *themselves* respected, world-renouned, academics who are also Jewish? Ahh, well, let's just say the word "anti-Semite" a few more times and click our heels and hope nobody notices....

By the way, the more astute of Larry's blog audience should notice that those hurling inaccurate and misguided labels at your humble anonymous messenger, and at Jewish Harvard professors, are deliberately distracting discussion from the merits of the original claim, which is that the Israel lobby has too much power in America, and this is bad for America, and for Israel. I guess they prefer slinging insults to rational discussion.

mike in st. louis said...

okay, now i'm bored. i concede to the uninterrupted flow of garbage emanating from "anonymous" pie hole. forgetting that the so-called scholarly paper in question (shockingly, anonymous continues his stubborn habit of clinging to a single source in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary) was discredited by harvard's own president -- oh, wait, that's more evidence of the power of the nefarious "jewish lobby," isn't it? forget all of the u.s. aid that flowed to arafat's plo, only to end up diverted to his wife in france. forget that the present elected leadership of the pa territories has sworn to the destruction of israel and is outraged that this has harmed their international standing. it would be nice if it actually had.

forget the calculated ignorance (except when convenient) of the palestinians by the surrounding arab countries, which, we might be reminded, staged a very effected "ethnic cleansing" campaign of their own (check the numbers -- where large jewish communities once flourished, none of these countries have a jewish population above 5,000 anymore). i understand that it is somehow the fault of "the jews" that these refugees have been allowed to sit in camps for 50 years. naturally, that 75% of the land given to them in 1948 wasn't enough. who would accept that when they had been "forced (see below)" from their homes by people who hadn't been living in the same land for hundreds of years. oh wait. they had been there for hundreds of years.

forget also the lies about "land taken by force" in 1948, and do some research which will reveal that most of this land was either sold or vacated at the urging of the surrounding arab countries, who promised to "drive the jews into the sea." it shouldn't be too difficult to remember this, since that slogan continues to serve for hamas, fateh, hezbollah, etc.

how about a very small, democratic nation -- no less legitimate that those created by great britain in 1918 -- iraq, iran, etc. -- being forced to defend itself repeatedly from attacks, beginning 3 days after it declared independence? how about a nation being forced to give up contigious land won during a defensive battle -- if you try to add up the number of countries being asked to do that, the number will end at one.

end it with the preposterous assumption that less than 8% of the u.s. population (those evil jews again) dominates the affairs of the other 92%. they run the media and banking, too, you know.

the reason i include "anti-semitic" in my comments, is because you are not constructively criticizing the conduct of israel. you call it the "american jewish party line." i am sorry if i wasn't supposed to notice your true intention here. i am sure that you can often convince people that you don't mean to be anti-semitic. i realize that you employ to use a certain critical distance to appear more knowledgeable and even-handed, but that dog won't hunt here. no in st. louis.

add it all up and you can understand why a pompous, arrogant, misinformed coward would continue to pump out one-note, pathetically condescending diatribes while hiding behind the name "anonymous."

oh, i'm sorry. did i resort to name-calling? oops.

i don't expect you to do anything other than respond in detached, patronizing manner. so go for it. because frankly, i think you get off on it.

Anonymous said...

Someone can't handle a rational discussion without resorting to insults. Wonder who that could be.

By the way, the article to which I cite is neither the "only" one nor has it been "refuted" in any manner which would justify you writing it off.

But being that you're an absolutely ideologue who will never admit Israel has done any wrong, or that Jewish people can be legitimately criticized when they do wrong, we can just leave it at that.

mike in stl said...

yeah. right. that's exactly what i said. speaking of focusing on personal attacks (however patronizing and carefully measured)was i not supposed to notice your consistency in ignoring legitimate points brought up in response to your blasts? guess so. titter away, "anonymous." your are the ruler of your own little twisted world. "humble," indeed.