Allow me to be totally ignorant -- I don't understand the use of 'endemic' in this context. What do you understand it to mean? Because I have no idea, so I can't comment either way!
I have no small confusion on that matter myself, admittedly. I can't imagine anything he could mean to it that I would be able to agree to, though, and "WTF?" was my immediate reaction--trying to question individual meanings (both for "endemic" and for "white racism") came later.
Well, I *think* the use here is 'native'/'inherent' -- so "White racism is endemic" means "White people are naturally racist." And I don't think that's a bad thing to disagree with. Am I missing something?
My first reading--one I have not yet convinced myself was wrong--was that it was an outright denial of systemic racism resulting in white privilege, in favor of an "isolated acts" model. Even if one reads it more narrowly as claiming that systemic racism is merely not all-pervasive, I'm still not sure I can accept. If he means "There is an imaginable future in which white people are not racist" then I agree with him but a) strongly suspect he is arguing against a straw argument, and b) question what "white people" would mean in that future.
I thought that the unspoken rule was neither side would mention race? Has that been completely abandoned now?
Personally I've decided to stop caring about the Democrat side of the election, because it is too painful watching the party tear itself apart. It makes me feel even more powerless than usual. I think it's time I started looking for good aspects in the Republican chap because it looks as if that's who we're going to get saddled with.
Had time to read the paper now so that has answered most of my questions about why he made the speech. And they are now saying Hillary doesn't have much chance. When did that happen? I turn my back for a few days and the whole thing changes.
So how do you feel? Would you rather race had never been mentioned or are you glad the issue has been raised?
Yes, this was forced upon them in a way that really neither candidate could control or would even necessarily want.
I tend to think that Sen. Obama can do more for race relations in my country by becoming President and setting that precedent (although I voted for Sen. Clinton) than by making a speech. OTOH, it's hard to believe race wouldn't (and won't) come up after the Democratic convention in an ugly way if Sen. Obama wins.
It frustrates me that the only time the word "privilege" appears in the speech is to mention that white people don't think they have it. It frustrates me that it lets people off thinking that racism is the problem of "those other people" and not all-pervasive. (Told you there were people in America who thought that way.) I understand why--attacking everybody doesn't win votes--but I don't have to like it.
Did we need a speech like this? Absolutely. Did it not go far enough? Certainly. But I tend to feel that having someone who isn't a white male in the White House represents a more significant, visible, and meaningful change.
I understand why--attacking everybody doesn't win votes--but I don't have to like it.
I think it is though an important part of how and why democracy works. The fact that in order to get elected a politician has to be able to appeal to the majority slows down the process of change, and while that can be regrettable if a change is what one wants to see, slow change is fundamentally more stable and thus more likely to lead to the greater happiness of the greater number along the way. Or to put it another way, you can see this by contrast with the other extreme where revolutions always have high casualty rates.
It is an old saw that nations have to earn democracy for themselves by reaching a certain state of mental willingness, but I have found that is true on an individual level as well. Like you, I support a party which has been out of power for many years now, and as well as patience it has taught me to look at democracy and how it works in new ways, and to understand the beauty of the system even when I am feeling it grate. I'm not quite at the stage of 'anything to get elected' but I can understand it is not as flawed and immoral a stance as it can at first appear.
Personally I tend to admire U.S. politicians, they seem to have an integrity that our own lack, and Sen. Obama strikes me as a good man. Speaking as a non-participant I hope he wins, although I cannot afford to set my heart too much on it, because I would rather be ruled by him than either of the others. I think if someone as conservative as me can find Sen. Obama's rhetoric for change appealing, then he is doing what he is doing very well indeed. And I hope that if he does win he doesn't get disowned by the very people who should most welcome him - as Margaret Thatcher was by feminists in this country, who with very few exceptions refuse to acknowledge her even as a woman, let alone as the first female PM.
At least by speaking out about race, if he gets elected he will be elected for what he is, not just for what people hope he might be. I can respect that.
For me it's less about trying to create change than being honest. It's one thing not to talk about race because the issue is divisive and distracting; it's another to actively imply that the problem is isolated and non-systemic.
Honestly, I'd prefer for him to be lying. I suspect the truth is somewhere between the two, but I honestly don't know. It worries me--not a whole lot, because I don't think what the President's analysis of racism and how it operates is actually makes a lot of difference in terms of meaningful policy (paling in comparison to the importance of setting the precedent), but it's still somewhat disturbing.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Yup.
Date: 2008-03-18 06:40 pm (UTC)However, as others in the linked thread point out, the speech does push the bounds of mainstream racial discourse. Which I guess is good?
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-18 07:33 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-18 08:17 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-18 08:18 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-18 08:45 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-18 08:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-18 09:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-18 09:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-19 07:32 am (UTC)Personally I've decided to stop caring about the Democrat side of the election, because it is too painful watching the party tear itself apart. It makes me feel even more powerless than usual. I think it's time I started looking for good aspects in the Republican chap because it looks as if that's who we're going to get saddled with.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-19 08:55 am (UTC)So how do you feel? Would you rather race had never been mentioned or are you glad the issue has been raised?
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-19 12:40 pm (UTC)I tend to think that Sen. Obama can do more for race relations in my country by becoming President and setting that precedent (although I voted for Sen. Clinton) than by making a speech. OTOH, it's hard to believe race wouldn't (and won't) come up after the Democratic convention in an ugly way if Sen. Obama wins.
It frustrates me that the only time the word "privilege" appears in the speech is to mention that white people don't think they have it. It frustrates me that it lets people off thinking that racism is the problem of "those other people" and not all-pervasive. (Told you there were people in America who thought that way.) I understand why--attacking everybody doesn't win votes--but I don't have to like it.
Did we need a speech like this? Absolutely. Did it not go far enough? Certainly. But I tend to feel that having someone who isn't a white male in the White House represents a more significant, visible, and meaningful change.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-19 03:04 pm (UTC)I think it is though an important part of how and why democracy works. The fact that in order to get elected a politician has to be able to appeal to the majority slows down the process of change, and while that can be regrettable if a change is what one wants to see, slow change is fundamentally more stable and thus more likely to lead to the greater happiness of the greater number along the way. Or to put it another way, you can see this by contrast with the other extreme where revolutions always have high casualty rates.
It is an old saw that nations have to earn democracy for themselves by reaching a certain state of mental willingness, but I have found that is true on an individual level as well. Like you, I support a party which has been out of power for many years now, and as well as patience it has taught me to look at democracy and how it works in new ways, and to understand the beauty of the system even when I am feeling it grate. I'm not quite at the stage of 'anything to get elected' but I can understand it is not as flawed and immoral a stance as it can at first appear.
Personally I tend to admire U.S. politicians, they seem to have an integrity that our own lack, and Sen. Obama strikes me as a good man. Speaking as a non-participant I hope he wins, although I cannot afford to set my heart too much on it, because I would rather be ruled by him than either of the others. I think if someone as conservative as me can find Sen. Obama's rhetoric for change appealing, then he is doing what he is doing very well indeed. And I hope that if he does win he doesn't get disowned by the very people who should most welcome him - as Margaret Thatcher was by feminists in this country, who with very few exceptions refuse to acknowledge her even as a woman, let alone as the first female PM.
At least by speaking out about race, if he gets elected he will be elected for what he is, not just for what people hope he might be. I can respect that.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-19 03:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-19 04:08 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-19 05:05 pm (UTC)