Ok, let's go.

I did a little editing to separate the quotes a little better, and to make it a little easier to read.

Haven't seen a lot of stuff at the school level in this town first hand, I can say this much. (and statistics bear me out actually) Race has a lot less to do with how people end up in life, versus socioeconomic backround. Children raised below poverty levels, are a lot more likely to lose hope and turn to crime as a way of getting by, versus it being a black vs white thing.

In the vast majority of cases, kids do not 'turn to crime' to get food to eat or clothes to wear, or to help support a family. They use the extra money for bling and extras, not needed basics.


HEY MODERATOR: HOW DO YOU TURN OFF THE QUOTES when adding a reply??

I am one of the most color blind people you will meet. I do not judge a person by the color of their skin, what nationality they are or where moved from. People are people, plain and simple. However, I do think that crime and random acts of violence are higher among blacks and hispanics. Why is this? I don't know. But that seems to be the way it is. I know the MCPD 10 Most Wanted appear to primarily feature blacks, but that is not really true. I've paid attention to that thing and it goes up and down. There will be mostly blacks for a while, then mostly whites for a while. I've seen it a time or two be ALL white, but I've never seen it ALL black. So, I don't think there is any racial profiling going on there.
In my opinion based on observations, the crime and violence among hispanics mostly target other hispanics, not too much whites or blacks. Crime and Violence among blacks are mostly within neighborhoods that have black residents and for the most part is against other blacks. But, crime and violence by white people are against who ever happens to be in the way and can occur in any neighborhood. Please don't think I'm saying this is the way it is 100%, because there are exceptions to the rule. I'm saying that based on observations I have made, this appears to be the norm.
I also think that white people are more racist and bigoted than others, but I can't stand it when people pull a "race card" because they do not like what a person has to say. It's unfortunate that things have to be that way. Like the LaPorte thing. They want to get rid of illegal aliens. Well, I agree because those people are here ILLEGALLY (whether they be Hispanic, Chinese, or Martian). But, the councilman is called a racist and a bigot. He's not. He's just a guy who is trying to protect the citizens he was elected to protect. I'm sure the councelman wouldn't have a problem if those illegals got the proper Visa's, paid taxes on the wages they earned and became contributing members of society, just like the rest of our citizens.
Unfortunately, there will always be racism. No matter where you go, how you live, or what you do. God gave it to us when he made the Tower of Babel. I think what we need to do is rise above it individually and try our best to ignore those who think they are best because of the color of their skin, or the country they came from, or the diety they serve. I don't think it will ever truly go away, but we can try to elminate as much as we can.

Oh, and Roger, if you click on the "Add Reply" box under and outside of the last post, you will not get the quotes.

Ang, I do not agree that white people are more bigoted. I have heard plenty of blacks say ugly things about whites. It does seem that there is more feeling that it is wrong for whites to be racists but somehow understandable and acceptable for nonwhites to be racists. What do you think?

I also do not agree that most bigots are white. It is sad to hear kids carry on stereotypes, racism and bigotry. They are so desensitised that they do not even realize that they are doing so most of the time. One of the counselors showed a video at Elston this year on tolerance. That same day I had to address a student that called another student a "fag." Most of the kids really do have a big heart...they would do anything to help out a teacher for example. They do not maliciously spread hate, but they often seem doomed to repeat the lessons taught to them when perhaps no one thought they were listening.

I agree with the last part of Roger's statement and Bioteach made an excellent statement about stereotypes and remarks and not realizing it. But, I still think it's mostly whites (and in case you don't already know who I am, I am white) who are bigotted. It may seem like it's not that way because white people are not the minority. There are less black people so it seems that more are racist, but in reality it's not that way. How many times do you suppose a white person has been in a store and picked a different line because a black person was next, or drove an extra 5 miles to the gas station because they were on the Boulevard and didn't want to "take a chance" at Ramco or Duke of Oil? White people don't buy their liquor at 8th Street Liquors, they don't buy their groceries at that little place on 6th and the Blvd. They don't build homes on the West Side, or shop there either. Why do you suppose that is? Do you think blacks or mexicans avoid Trail Creek Liquors? Nope. Do they avoid certain gas stations? Do they not live in Village Green or Trail Creek? No. No. No. How many instances are there of a white landlord not renting to a black tenant, but have you ever known a black landlord not to rent to a white tennat? I think the majority (granted not all) racism by minorities is a defense mechanism due to racism by whites. You have to admit, we were pretty brutal in the past and not just against blacks, but against mexicans, asians, anyone whose skin is not white or eyes aren't round. White people want to think that we're past all that. Discrimination is a thing of the past. Everyone is equal and should be treated that way, but in reality it's just not the way it is.
I believe that people want to be past it. I know there are others out there who are color blind, who aren't afraid. Who embrace a person for who they are, not the color of their skin or the way they dress, or the music they listen to, or the religeon they practice. I don't think the world is one big bigot-fest. I just think that the majority of racist people in this country are white. I wish it weren't so, that gives the minorities all the more reason to cry fowl when they don't get something or when something bad happens to one of their own.

I for one do not avoid Mich Blvd after dark because of the race of people there; it is only because of the amount of crime there. It would be irresponsible of me to ignore that. I do go to the liquor store formerly known as Crown Liquors, in large part because when I was in high school, I made the honest mistake of buying Stroh's, mostly, at the old Kyle's Crown Liq when it was by the library. Call it old time's sake. It is fact that some of the areas Ang mentions as avoided by whites are areas that are higher crime areas and places where the neighborhood in largely nonwhite. What I would like this thread to explore is the relationship between those two observations.

The relationship between the two is directly tied to socioeconomic backround and education levels.

not all un- or undereducated folks are criminally minded, nor are all the poor. And there are plenty of well-educated or wealthy folks who are. Yet crime is higher in areas where the $ is less and the educational attainment is low, on average. Why?

If you are looking for an absolute answer to topics like this, you will never find one. Identifying trends and patterns is the closest you are going to get to having an answer.

Referring back to the title of the thread, I want to examine whether "socioeconomic factors" is just code for black, or rather, nonwhite.

Well, two more people are on the ten most wanted list: One Black man, one Black woman. What are the criteria to be on this list? I suppose we should look at the list at www.laportecountyprosecutor.com to see the racial distribution.

Eight out of ten.

This is an old thread but I did not want to start a new one and overload the system.


I want to discuss the racism (yes or no) in MCAS. I put forward the proposition that racism does exist in that the "emergency" of low test scores and low achievement by nonWhite students is not addressed adequately; the prima facie evidence is that it still occurs.

I'm not racict, I hate everyone. J/K, you could safely replace hate with love and you wouldn't be far off. I always try to find the best in everyone unless you get on my badside re: Chuck Morris, lol.
I moved back here with my wife (who's a half breed) back in '02. I've lived all over this country and in a couple different countries for that matter. The "N" word get's passed around wayyyyy to casually with people, sometimes by people who I respect. I don't find this normal behavior but I'm somewhat used to it. My wife is always shocked by it and hates it which makes me upset. I usual dismiss it as the person as being stupid.
I agree with SS'er. It has a lot to do with your socio-economic background. If you were born in a hell hole, it's often hard or impossible to turn your life around. I suppose that's why people sometimes say that excellence breeds excellence.

"Excellence breeds excellence" brings to mind a very self-satisfied couple at tea eyeing their children being brought in by the nanny.


I just do not see any urgency to the problem of making education successful more evenly in MC. Why does a China jaunt get top priority? Who really cares is kids actually learn?

Someone said that to me the other day and it stuck but on many levels, it's true. You could say the same for the other end of the spectrum and you wouldn't be too far off base. When the parents are involved and want their children to have a better life than themselves, that's when change occurs. Don't think that the chemical engineer from India who is making change at the gas station has kids who are going to be doing the same job. They left their country with an education and a career to have a better life for their offspring even if many sacrifices need to be made

I don't know that it's actually an issue of racism as it is more socioeconomic back ground. There are extremely intelligent black kids in school, and there are extremely ignorant white kids and I don't think the color of your skin determines your ability to learn. What determines ones ability to learn is inside each individual. Most kids are caught up in the cycle of life their parents were in. Way back in the day, I think it was an issue because blacks weren't supposed to learn, they might become superior to whites, so their educations were supressed. Now a days, it's different. IMO if a black child is not learning, it is because they aren't being encouraged by their parents or the people close to them, just like white kids who don't learn.
I also think it is WRONG for test scores to be categorized by white kids and black kids. The test scores should just be test scores. Nothing more. MCAS is doing poorly because the test scores are down. Period.

I agree with both CCR and Ang, on different points, but CCR said it best:


It doesn't matter where you send your kids...the parents have to be involved and want better for the kids.

The one huge factor in MC is that some of the parents just don't care...they see public school as 6 hours of free day care...and now that "Safe Harbor" is in place, and it's dirt cheap, they can have 10 hours or more a day to themselves. I see it everyday when my kids are in school--it's nauseating.

Now with the "No Child Left Behind" act in place, it's also more difficult for teachers to hold a kid back who really needs to repeat a grade. They can "suggest" that the kid be held back, but without the consent of a parent, it doesn't mean squat.

How do you combat those things?

Oh...one more thing. They're still giving ISTEP tests to some kids in Special Ed, because they have to. WHen their test scores don't register (for a variety of reasons), it lowers the overall numbers.

That isn't an MCAS thing or an Indiana thing, that is a No Child Left Behind edict.

I thought you wrote "Chuck Norris" at first, which would be impressive. Alas, no.

Nothing to say on topic.

Very true, but it only seems to add to the problem we're discussing.

In a community where we have a VERY high special ed percentage of students, no it doesn't help at all.

I was discussing the election with an older acquaintance (in her 80s), and here is what she said about Obama winning: She is against that because--God is my witness that these are the exact words she used--he would bring in the colored.

I am still stunned, and that was a coupl'a weeks ago.

It indicates that racism is still deeply rooted, and maybe it is a generational thing, but how widespread is the attitude shown by such a comment?

It is still very real across a large swath of the country, but in general it is very much generational for most. Then again there are just areas in this country which haven't been exposed to other people who just have substituted stereotypes in the place of experience. I swear that there were people in the small town where I went to college who have never talked to a black person. I couldn't relate to that and that kind of ignorance was a reason I didn't stay down there after college, and instead moved back home.

There is only a handful of black folks where I live, but there is NO racism that I have seen. I love it because people are people here. They're not Mexicans, Blacks, Whites and all others, they're just people. Most minorities are in interracial relationships and people don't look twice. It's nice.

My son, like your wife is very well blended. I hope she kicks your butt for calling her a half breed!

I was wondering if anyone was gonna pick up on that! hahahaha!

<h4 c
lass="date">
</h4>


http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21771



<h4 class="date">
</h4><h4 class="date">
</h4><h4 class="date">

Volume 55, Number 14 · September 25, 2008 </h4>


Obama: The Price of Being Black

By Andrew Hacker
<h5 class="reviewed-title">Restoring the Right to Vote</h5> <h5 class="reviewed-author">by Erika Wood</h5> Brennan Center for Justice, 34 pp., available at www.brennancenter.org

<h5 class="reviewed-title">Crawford v. Marion County [Indiana] Election Board</h5> US Supreme Court, April 28, 2008

<h5 class="reviewed-title">Florida State Conference of the NAACP v. Browning</h5> US Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, April 3, 2008

In May, Hillary Clinton described many of her core supporters as "hard-working Americans, white Americans." Primary voting in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia confirmed her surmise. Her remark seemed, without saying so, to claim an advantage over Obama that was due to his race. But there's more we need to know. We can see how being a farmer or a bond trader or a gun collector might influence your vote. And we understand why black Americans would want a person of their race in the Oval Office. But just what is there about being white that might incline someone toward one candidate instead of another?

Senator Clinton implied that this identity was salient for some voters and that she could appeal to it. Polls showed that some 15 to 20 percent of white voters in those three states said that "race" was a factor in their vote, and we are left to wonder just how much of a factor and how many more would have said the same if they had been frank with the interviewer. People are uneasy talking about the subject of race, but the feeling persists that Obama's half-ancestry could tip the scales on November 4.


1.
Barack Obama can only become president by mustering a turnout that will surpass the votes he is not going to get. This may well mean that more black Americans than ever will have to go to the polls, if only because the electorate is predominantly white, and it isn't clear how their votes will go. Obstacles to getting blacks to vote have always been formidable, but this year there will be barriers—some new, some long-standing—that previous campaigns have not had to face.

aj_server = 'http://rotator.adjuggler.com/servlet/ajrotator/'; aj_tagver = '1.0'; aj_zone = 'nyrb'; aj_adspot = '147551'; aj_page = '0'; aj_dim ='147520'; aj_ch = ''; aj_ct = ''; aj_kw = ''; aj_pv = true; aj_click = ''; For many years, the momentum was toward making the franchise universal. Property qualifications were ended; the poll tax was nullified; the voting age was lowered to eighteen. But now strong forces are at work to downsize the electorate, ostensibly to combat fraud and strip the rolls of voters who are ineligible for one reason or another. But the real effect is to make it harder for many black Americans to vote, largely because they are more vulnerable to challenges than other parts of the population.

Licensed to Vote

In a 6–3 decision in April written by John Paul Stevens, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board , the Supreme Court upheld a 2005 Indiana law requiring voters in that state to produce a government document with a photograph at the polls. In practical terms, this meant a passport or a driver's license. Since less than a third of adults have a passport, the Indiana case focused largely on how many adults lack a license to drive. During oral arguments, several justices pressed the plaintiff's lawyer for an answer. For reasons I cannot fathom, he kept using the number 43,000, for a state whose voting-age population is 4.6 million. In fact, the Federal Highway Administration, in an easily obtained report, says that 673,926 adult residents of Indiana have no license, which works out to a not trivial 14.7 percent of the state's potential electorate. Had that percentage been stressed, we can conjecture that Justices Stevens and Anthony Kennedy might have shifted their position.

Requiring a driver's license to vote has a disparate racial impact, a finding that once commanded judicial notice. To apply for the state ID card that Indiana offers as an alternative, moreover, nondrivers must travel to a motor vehicles office, which for many would be a lengthy trip. While licenses do not record race, Justice David Souter cited relevant studies of the race of license-holders in his dissent, which was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In one survey, made by the Department of Justice in 1994, black residents of Louisiana were found to be four to five times more likely not to have the official photograph needed for an identifying document. (Not to mention access to a car; recall how many couldn't leave as Katrina approached.) A Wisconsin survey published in 2005 was more precise. No fewer than 53 percent of black adults in Milwaukee County were not licensed to drive, compared with 15 percent of white adults in the remainder of the state. According to its author, similar disparities will be found across the nation. [url="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21771#fn1"][1]

The Indiana decision will not only make it harder to add new people to the rolls; many who had previously voted without photo identification are now required to produce an official photograph. If Marion County (Indianapolis) has the same proportion of unlicensed voters as Milwaukee County, I count it as having more than 44,000 black residents who will be needing transport to motor bureaus to ensure that each item in their nondriver ID application has been properly filled in. Extended nationwide, this means that a lot of on-the-ground assistance is going to be needed.

Purging the Rolls

In 2002, Congress passed the amiably titled Help America Vote Act, presumably to thwart the recurrence of butterfly ballots and dimpled chads. To ensure that voters won't face problems at their polling place, each state is required to maintain an electronic "statewide voter registration list," to be linked to every precinct. States were also mandated to keep their lists current, eliminating the people who die or move away. One method is to mail letters to everyone on the rolls and expunge the names on those letters returned because the addressee could not be found. But black families tend to move more, especially in cities, and few think to notify election officials. When Ohio purged 35,427 returned names in 2004, a review found that the addresses were in "mostly urban and minority areas." [/url][url="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21771#fn2"][2] Here too, getting back on the rolls can be like mending a mistaken credit rating.

Florida doesn't depend on mailings. Rather, it uses computers to match registrants' names against their Social Security numbers, which are then sent to Washington (actually Baltimore) to see if they match. Whoever devised this system should have known that the Social Security Administration is unable to match submitted names with numbers in 28 percent of the cases sent to it: for example, because they are maiden names of women who married or changed them back after a divorce. [/url][url="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21771#fn3"][3] Not to mention keyboard operators getting a single digit wrong. Florida also uses the help-the-voter act to check felony records, since convicted criminals there can't vote. Oddly, it only requires that 80 percent of the letters in your name match with the name of someone with such a record. So if there's a murderous John Peterson, the software disenfranchises everyone named John Peters. In view of the racial rates for incarceration, black voters are more apt to have names closely resembling those with felony histories.

Florida's system for purging the voting lists was approved by a 2–1 ruling in federal circuit court this spring, Flor-ida State Conference of the NAACP v. Browning . The dissenting judge, Rosemary Barkett, a Clinton appointee, was the only one to spell out the disparate racial impact. She noted that while black voters made up 13 percent of the scanned pool, they comprised 26 percent of those who were purged; while whites were 66 percent of the pool, they were only 17 percent of the rejected group. Again, if you have plenty of time, you can claim that the computer was mistaken and try to find documents that show you exist and were never a felon.

Voteless for Life

Proportional to the population, the United States leads the world in putting people behind bars, and currently has 2.3 million in its jails and prisons. Among inmates, black men and women outnumber Hispanics by more than two to one and whites by nearly six to one. This is another reason why a much higher ratio of black citizens will be unable to vote this year, because they are among either the 882,300 who are currently incarcerated or the two million who have served sentences but continue to be disenfranchised. According to Restoring the Right to Vote , a report by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School, 13 percent of black men cannot cast votes; in three states 20 percent cannot because they are locked up or formerly were.

Some states specify felonies that condemn the citizen to disenfranchisement for life. Alabama includes soliciting a child by computer, possession of obscene matter, and treason. Yes, some crimes are heinous; but completing a sentence is supposed to signify that a debt has been paid. Indeed, a desire to vote can be seen as showing a willingness to accept a citizen's obligations. Virginia takes an especially harsh view of drug offenses, which is mainly why so many black Americans are imprisoned there, not least because it's so easy to make such arrests. Released offenders must wait seven years before they can file a petition for their vote, which must be accompanied by seven documents and several supporting letters, plus another to the governor detailing "how your life has changed" and specifying "why you feel your rights should be restored."

Mississippi has a similar regimen: with 155,127 men and women released between 1992 and 2004, only 107 petitions to have the right to vote restored were approved. The disenfranchisement of former felons in Kentucky has reduced its potential black electorate by 24 percent. [/url][url="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21771#fn4"][4]

According to the Brennan Center report, only Maine and Vermont allow inmates to vote (as they can in Israel and Canada). Thirteen states, including Pennsylvania and Michigan, allow former convicts to vote upon their release from prison, while twenty-five bar voting until such ex-prisoners have completed their probation or parole. The other ten, like Alabama and Virginia, make the process of reattaining the right to vote so arduous that most people don't try. Nor does there seem to be much sentiment in those states for removing the bans or lowering the barriers. So allowing one-time inmates to become full citizens will be a long-term campaign; it will not likely have much effect on the next few elections.


2.
While a high black turnout will obviously help Obama, whether he becomes president will hinge on the decisions of white voters. (Most Hispanic-Americans list themselves as white or don't designate a race.) In all, 94.2 million white Americans took part in the 2004 presidential election, as compared to only 13.5 million blacks; and 58 percent of whites supported George W. Bush against just 41 percent for John Kerry. So the Obama campaign, even if helped by external events, will have to change a lot of white minds.

There are already danger signs. In three states, race will in effect be on the ballot. Colorado and Nebraska are giving their residents a chance to ban affirmative action. The measures in both states carry the title " civil rights initiative ," at the urging of the black political activist Ward Connerly, who succeeded in outlawing affirmative action in California and has inspired similar campaigns in other states. The signs are that both measures will pass with votes to spare. This is what happened in California (1996), Washington (1998), and Michigan (2006), which tend to be liberal states. The reason isn't hard to find. Putting affirmative action on a ballot encourages white majorities to identify themselves by their race. It's their rights they are voting to restore.

What is seldom openly said is that a lot of white Americans feel racially aggrieved. They were represented by Barbara Grutter and Jennifer Gratz, whose petitions to end affirmative action reached the Supreme Court in 2003. [/url][url="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21771#fn5"][5] Their claims were that places which would otherwise have been theirs at the University of Michigan were given to less qualified black applicants. Thus, they argued, they were rejected because they were white, and there was an official preference for other races. In separate decisions, the Court narrowly upheld the law school's affirmative action method, while striking down the undergraduate admissions procedure.

What is rarely mentioned is that neither Grutter nor Gratz were outstanding candidates. To put it crudely, they weren't high on the "white list." And a lot of whites see themselves in the same situation. They are the ones who don't get admission or promotions, and thus feel they bear the brunt of affirmative action. Nor are they wrong about this, as Obama observed in his Philadelphia speech. Moreover, such feelings about affirmative action appear to be nationwide, even in states where it hasn't been on the ballot. Obama's word "bitter" may describe a good many blue-collar and middle-income families whose children have been rejected by their state's university.

This explains why close to 65 percent of white voters in California, Washington, and Michigan supported the bans, and why similar proportions are expected to in Colorado and Nebraska this November. So a task of Obama's campaign is to ensure that this white cause—which is what it is—does not carry over to the presidential contest. While only fourteen electoral votes are at stake, they could make a difference. Two Democratic senators, Patty Murray of Washington and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, may have some useful advice. In 1998 and 2006, it was clear that many voters whose support they needed would also be supporting repeal of affirmative action. Yet Murray managed to win with 58 percent of the total, while Stabenow's margin was 56 percent. How they managed to keep separate their own election and the vote on affirmative action, for example, by emphasizing economic issues, could be instructive.

As I write, several polls give Obama about 47 percent and McCain about 45 percent, a decline of several points for Obama from the polls of May and July. The rest of the respondents say they are undecided. At the same time the state-by-state estimates by pollster.com show Obama leading in electoral votes, with 102 such votes a "toss-up." The numbers will probably have changed by the time you read this. Yet now and later, there's a chance that the real percentages will be the reverse of those I've cited. Some people who are telling pollsters they're for Obama could actually be lying.

Such behavior has been called the "Bradley Effect ," after Tom Bradley, a black mayor of Los Angeles who lost his bid to be California's governor back in 1982. While every poll showed him leading his white opponent, that isn't how the final tally turned out. Things haven't been far different in some other elections involving black candidates. In 1989, David Dinkins was eighteen points ahead in the polls for New York's mayoral election, but ended up winning by only a two-point edge. The same year, Douglas Wilder was projected to win Virginia's governorship by nine points, but squeaked in with one half of one percent of the popular vote. Nor are examples only from the past. In Michigan in 2006, the final polls forecast that the proposal to ban affirmative action would narrowly prevail by 51 percent. In fact, it handily passed with 58 percent. That's a Bradley gap of seven points, which isn't trivial.

Pollsters contend that respondents often change their minds at the last minute, or that conservatives are less willing to cooperate with surveys. Another twist is that more voters are mailing in absentee ballots, and it's not clear how those early decisions are reflected in the polls. Yet the Bradley gap persists after voters have actually cast their ballots. Just out of the booth, we hear them telling white exit pollers that they supported the black candidate, whereas returns from these precincts show far fewer such votes. Thus they lie to interviewers they don't know and will never see again. Barack Obama wants to think "white guilt [over treatment of blacks] has largely exhausted itself in America." [/url][url="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21771#fn6"][6] I'm less sure. Almost all people who reject black candidates say they have nonracial reasons for doing so. And many undoubtedly believe what they're saying. So I'm not persuaded that the Bradley gap won't emerge this year. The Obama campaign would do well to print signs to post prominently in all its offices: ALWAYS SUBTRACT SEVEN PERCENT!

Since 1968, the Democratic Party has not been able to muster a majority of white Americans. Al Gore fell twelve percentage points behind among white voters in 2000, and John Kerry had a seventeen-point gap four years later. It all started with Richard Nixon's strategy, which was initially aimed at the South. With the opening of electoral rolls to blacks, the then-dominant Democrats were becoming a biracial party, which disconcerted many whites. So Nixon invited them to join the Republicans, assuring them that they would not press to integrate their party. The formula continued to work when it moved north with the emergence of Reagan Democrats. By the 2000 GOP convention, there were only eighty-five black faces among the 2,022 Republican delegates. Some unknown proportion of white voters doesn't want to support a party to which black Americans are drawn—"any more," as Darryl Pinckney has noted, "than they would go on living on a street that got too integrated." [/url][url="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21771#fn7"][7]

I've been careful so far not to use the word "racism." The term itself has become an obstacle to understanding. Once white people hear it, they tend to freeze, and start listing reasons why it doesn't apply to them. After all, most Americans admire Oprah Winfrey, like Tiger Woods, and respect Colin Powell. Yet racism persists, albeit not publicly voiced, especially in the belief that one's own is a superior strain. Here, however, not many whites regard Barack Obama as their inferior; effete or arrogant perhaps, but they don't fault him on intellect. To some, indeed, he may seem too much the intellectual. Resentment of perceived black privilege is also involved, as we have seen with respect to affirmative action, and even fear of some kind of racial payback. Over half of a largely white sample told a Rasmussen poll that they feel Obama continues to share at least some of Reverend Jeremiah Wright's positions on America.

On underlying sentiments, surveys aren't much help. For example, in an ABC News /Washington Post poll in June, 20 percent of the whites who responded said a candidate's race would factor heavily in their vote, while 30 percent admitted to feelings of racial prejudice. If the Bradley Effect was at work, as many as one third of the voters may count race as important. (We know of whites who are for Obama because they'd like to have a black president, which is also a racial reason.) In July, 70 percent of whites told a New York Times/ CBS News poll that they felt the country "is ready to elect a black president." Of course; that's what people feel obliged to say today. Yet some might have followed it up with "but not Barack Obama." The surveys can't measure white apprehensions over having a black man at the head of their government.

Michael Tomasky has said that to win, Barack Obama "will need to build multiracial coalitions." [/url][url="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21771#fn8"][8] What seems more needed, in my view, are two parallel campaigns: a quiet one to assure a maximum black turnout, and a more public one to make the most of the white backing the Obama-Biden ticket already has. His rallies, appearances, and advertisements would benefit from featuring white faces, and they should be accompanied by endorsements from white military veterans, union leaders, police chiefs, and firemen. His black supporters will know what is going on, and not take this as a rebuff.

— August 28, 2008

addthis_pub = 'nybooks'; addthis_logo = 'http://www.nybooks.com/images/logo-150.gif'; addthis_logo_background = 'ffffff'; addthis_logo_color = '666666'; addthis_brand = 'The New York Review'; addthis_options = 'favorites, reddit, digg, stumbleupon, delicious, google, facebook, more';
[url="java script:popUp("]Email to a friend[/url]
Notes
[/url][url="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21771#fnr1"][1] John Pawasarat, The Driver License Status of the Voting Age Population in Wisconsin (University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee Employment and Training Institute, June 2005), p. 1.

[/url][url="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21771#fnr2"][2] Reported Instances of Voter Caging , Brennan Center for Justice, June 2007, p. 3.

[/url][url="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21771#fnr3"][3] Mike Slater, Laura Kyser, and Jo-Anne Chasnow, "New Barriers to Voting: Eroding the Right to Vote," National Voter , June 2006, p. 9.

[/url][url="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21771#fnr4"][4] Jeff Manza and Christopher Uggen, Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy (Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 252–253. See also Jason DeParle, "The American Prison Nightmare, The New York Review , April 12, 2007.

[/url][url="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21771#fnr5"][5] Grutter v. Bollinger , 539 U.S. 306 (2003); Gratz v. Bollinger , 539 U.S. 244 (2003).

[/url][url="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21771#fnr6"][6] The Audacity of Hope (Crown, 2006), p. 231.

[/url][url="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21771#fnr7"][7] "Obama and the Black Church," The New York Review , July 17, 2008.

[/url]<a href="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21771#fnr8">[8] Michael Tomasky, "Obama Needs More Than the Black Vote," The Guardian , July 18, 2008.

Does Race Matter In '08? The View From York, Pa.
[url="java script:NPR.Player.openPlayer(94523754,%2094525238,%20null,%20NPR.Player.Action.PLAY_NOW,%20NPR.Player.Type.STORY,%20"]Listen Now[/url] [url="java script:NPR.Player.openPlayer(94523754,%2094525238,%20null,%20NPR.Player.Action.ADD_TO_PLAYLIST,%20NPR.Player.Type.STORY,%20"]add to playlist[/url] | download

This is the second report in a series of conversations NPR is having with voters in York, Pa., about race and its role in the 2008 presidential election. Steve Inskeep and Michele Norris plan to meet with a group of 13 voters — a mix of whites, blacks and Latinos — from this swing state several times this fall to dig a little bit deeper than election polls.



More From The York Panel
Listen to the conversation Morning Edition aired on Thursday.

• Sep. 11, 2008Voters Confront Race And Politics In York, Pa.
• [url="java script:NPR.Player.openPlayer(94523754,%2094473624,%20null,%20NPR.Player.Action.PLAY_NOW,%20NPR.Player.Type.STORY,%20"]Listen: The Morning Edition Conversation With York Voters[/url] [url="java script:NPR.Player.openPlayer(94523754,%2094473624,%20null,%20NPR.Player.Action.ADD_TO_PLAYLIST,%20NPR.Player.Type.STORY,%20"]add[/url] | download

Read Michele Norris' Essay
Michele Norris writes about why she wanted to explore the issue of race in this presidential election and why NPR chose York, Pa.

• On Race: Pushing Beyond What Is Left Unsaid

All Things Considered, September 11, 2008 · Most voters say they won't decide between Barack Obama and John McCain on the basis of race. But, in a question that is more subtle than the standard questions in a poll, can a decision be based on the racial experience of the voter?

Of the 13 voters interviewed by Morning Edition and All Things Considered, many said this election had them thinking about race in new ways.

"I don't know if I can see another old white man as president," says Cal Weary. He's a black high school drama teacher who voted for President Bush in the past two elections. He knows that his declaration might sound harsh.

"And that sounds very racist for me to say it that way, but it is about appearances, and it is about this country, everywhere else being looked as being the biggest lie," Weary says. "You tell everyone in the world that we have the greatest opportunities here, you tell them anyone can start from shining shoes and be in charge of a Fortune 500 company, but then you say to the rest of the world, you say, 'You can have everything, but you can't live in the big White House.'"

The discussion was difficult for some, who folded their arms, sighed nervously and — at times — were confrontational.

"I don't think there is a problem with a black man," says Don Getty, a retired police officer, who is white. "I personally don't think Obama is the right one. He doesn't have the experience."

Margie Orr, a black receptionist, takes exception to Getty's view of Obama's experience.

"My thing is, though, what would make you think Palin would be — OK — we know John McCain has medical problems, God forbid that this man is elected, and this white female, so what you're saying is, though, the United States would rather see — as long as they're white — they don't care if she's even a female, but as long as it's a white person ..."

"No, I don't think that's the case," Getty responds. "She has more executive experience than he does. He was a community organizer. Nobody's ever told me what a community organizer is."

Says Orr: "Then maybe that's something then that you need to investigate."

Experiences With Race

But in order to understand how — or if — race affects voting decisions, it helps to learn more about these voters' experiences with race.

"I can't recall any privilege that I got because I was white," Getty says. "I mean, I went to city schools. But I don't know of anything that I got because I was white that the black kids couldn't have gotten the same thing."

Margie Orr recalls that hers was the first black family to move to their suburb. That was in 1963.

"We weren't wanted there, of course, and the whites did everything they could to intimidate us to get us to move," Orr says. "But my parents were staunch-hearted people. We weren't going to budge. So, of course, we stayed there. We endured it all: the break-ins, the house being messed up, the whole nine yards, being called niggers."

Orr dabs at her eyes when questioning why diversity has to be enforced.

"I mean, my parents taught me to love everybody. So I'm saying, 'But you have to be taught to love me?'" she says. "That's hard to understand."

Leah Moreland, a widow and former factory worker, says she grew up on a farm and was very sheltered.

"I really was totally unaware of prejudice," Moreland says.

Moreland says she lived at the end of West 6 Market Street bus line.

"There was a black man who would ride the bus and come out to the end of the line with his shotgun on the bus that would go groundhog hunting," Moreland says. "Dad would go out and say 'How many orders do you have,' because the people in the black community here in York ate groundhog. In fact, my mother cooked groundhog. And he would go out and hunt, but there was no prejudice in my home."

Race And Decision-Making

The hosts asked the voters who they planned to back in November, and how their racial experience or identity factored into that decision.

Orr, who still carries the scars of integration, says she plans to vote for Obama. She says her vote is based on pride, but you get a sense of something else:

"I'm a Democrat, and I'm going to vote for Obama, and one of the reasons is because he is black," Orr says. "I think he is qualified and come on, let's face facts. This man is going to be wiretapped up to his eyeballs. Come on people. You really think he is going to be put in office, and they are not going to keep an eye on him? Be for real.

"They are going to watch this man like white on rice. He's not going to be his own person per se. He is going to be screened to the max. … The white system ... that's who 'they' are, OK?"

Jeff Lobach, a white attorney, says he is surprised by the intolerance he sees in York today.

"White people are almost invariably shocked when they hear some of the things that African-Americans have to put up with," Lobach says. "It cuts across economic groups, too. African-American professionals in this town are treated differently. These are highly paid folks who are part of the 'haves' right now. We have had incidents where white lawyers won't shake the hand of a black lawyer."

But he also says he senses that change is in the air. Racial attitudes are shifting, including his own.

"I think if Sen. Obama is elected, it's not going to be because he's African-American," Lobach says. "I think we can all agree on that. If he's defeated, I hope it's not because he's an African-American, I think we all agree about that, too."

But Lobach still has a solid allegiance to his party: "I am an enthusiastic supporter of McCain right now, because I think this is his moment."

Leah Moreland, the woman who said she grew up sheltered from prejudice, plans to vote for McCain. Party loyalty is also part of her decision. But her cultural compass also comes into play. She says her gut tells her not to trust Obama.

"I look at Obama, and I have a question in my mind," she says. "Years ago, was he taken into the Muslim faith? And my concern is the only way you are no longer a Muslim is if you are dead, killed. So in my mind, he's still alive."

Although Barack Obama has said repeatedly he is not a Muslim and has never been a Muslim, Moreland is still unconvinced.

"There is something about him I don't trust," she says. "I don't care how good a speaker he is, I just can't trust him."

Where They Fall

At the end of the evening, a tally was taken of the support for the candidates.

Of the seven white voters and six voters of color, the majority of white voters are supporting McCain. All of the people of color are supporting Obama.

What does that say? Coincidence? Or is something else at work?

"I only heard one person even say or even think the reason they were voting that was because of race," says property manager Charlotte Bergdoll, the sole undecided voter.

She said she didn't see a connection between race and political choice, and in that assessment she wasn't alone.

But after the voters spent more time debating that divide — again, all the voters of color behind Obama, and almost all the white voters behind John McCain — most came to a reluctant conclusion.

Does race matter on a subconscious level? There was a series of exasperated utterances of "Yes."

And that raises one last question: Just how much are people aware of their biases or fears?

Cal Weary — black drama teacher, former Bush backer, current Obama supporter — says deep divisions on race might always be an obstacle.

"When someone asks the question like, 'Is America ready for a black president?' They're saying, 'Has American forgotten what it's done to black people?' and 'Have the black people forgotten what has been done to them?'" Weary says. "Is he going to be able to go in there and be respected? Because they're still making comments like: 'Oh, but he's so well-spoken,' and 'Oh my goodness, he's different than the rest.'"

"[It's] the same kind of thing I grew up with," Weary notes. "And I understand why they're asking the question. If you ask me if America is ready for it, I don't think they are. But when are we ever ready for anything that is a radical change?"

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=59100.64

Outrageous. Isn't it time to give up this kind of hate? The Bishop identifies racism as one of the great sins of our times. Amen, amen!

Any idea how much of the workforce on the Blue Chip project actually hails from MC? I'd hate for us to get labeled with something like that when there is a good chance it wasn't one of our own.

From Yahoo News:











Poll: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama
By RON FOURNIER and TREVOR TOMPSON, Associated Press Writers WASHINGTON (AP) — Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them "lazy," "violent," responsible for their own troubles.

The poll, conducted with Stanford University, suggests that the percentage of voters who may turn away from Obama because of his race could easily be larger than the final difference between the candidates in 2004 — about two and one-half percentage points.

Certainly, Republican John McCain has his own obstacles: He's an ally of an unpopular president and would be the nation's oldest first-term president. But Obama faces this: 40 percent of all white Americans hold at least a partly negative view toward blacks, and that includes many Democrats and independents.



More than a third of all white Democrats and independents — voters Obama can't win the White House without — agreed with at least one negative adjective about blacks, according to the survey, and they are significantly less likely to vote for Obama than those who don't have such views.

Such numbers are a harsh dose of reality in a campaign for the history books. Obama, the first black candidate with a serious shot at the presidency, accepted the Democratic nomination on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, a seminal moment for a nation that enshrined slavery in its Constitution.

"There are a lot fewer bigots than there were 50 years ago, but that doesn't mean there's only a few bigots," said Stanford political scientist Paul Sniderman who helped analyze the exhaustive survey.

The pollsters set out to determine why Obama is locked in a close race with McCain even as the political landscape seems to favor Democrats. President Bush's unpopularity, the Iraq war and a national sense of economic hard times cut against GOP candidates, as does that fact that Democratic voters outnumber Republicans.

The findings suggest that Obama's problem is close to home — among his fellow Democrats, particularly non-Hispanic white voters. Just seven in 10 people who call themselves Democrats support Obama, compared to the 85 percent of self-identified Republicans who back McCain.

The survey also focused on the racial attitudes of independent voters because they are likely to decide the election.

Lots of Republicans harbor prejudices, too, but the survey found they weren't voting against Obama because of his race. Most Republicans wouldn't vote for any Democrat for president — white, black or brown.

Not all whites are prejudiced. Indeed, more whites say good things about blacks than say bad things, the poll shows. And many whites who see blacks in a negative light are still willing or even eager to vote for Obama.

On the other side of the racial question, the Illinois Democrat is drawing almost unanimous support from blacks, the poll shows, though that probably wouldn't be enough to counter the negative effect of some whites' views.

Race is not the biggest factor driving Democrats and independents away from Obama. Doubts about his competency loom even larger, the poll indicates. More than a quarter of all Democrats expressed doubt that Obama can bring about the change they want, and they are likely to vote against him because of that.

Three in 10 of those Democrats who don't trust Obama's change-making credentials say they plan to vote for McCain.

Still, the effects of whites' racial views are apparent in the polling.

Statistical models derived from the poll suggest that Obama's support would be as much as 6 percentage points higher if there were no white racial prejudice.

But in an election without precedent, it's hard to know if such models take into account all the possible factors at play.

The AP-Yahoo News poll used the unique methodology of Knowledge Networks, a Menlo Park, Calif., firm that interviews people online after randomly selecting and screening them over telephone. Numerous studies have shown that people are more likely to report embarrassing behavior and unpopular opinions when answering questions on a computer rather than talking to a stranger.

Other techniques used in the poll included recording people's responses to black or white faces flashed on a computer screen, asking participants to rate how well certain adjectives apply to blacks, measuring whether people believe blacks' troubles are their own fault, and simply asking people how much they like or dislike blacks.

"We still don't like black people," said John Clouse, 57, reflecting the sentiments of his pals gathered at a coffee shop in Somerset, Ohio.

Given a choice of several positive and negative adjectives that might describe blacks, 20 percent of all whites said the word "violent" strongly applied. Among other words, 22 percent agreed with "boastful," 29 percent "complaining," 13 percent "lazy" and 11 percent "irresponsible." When asked about positive adjectives, whites were more likely to stay on the fence than give a strongly positive assessment.

Among white Democrats, one third cited a negative adjective and, of those, 58 percent said they planned to back Obama.

The poll sought to measure latent prejudices among whites by asking about factors contributing to the state of black America. One finding: More than a quarter of white Democrats agree that "if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites."

Those who agreed with that statement were much less likely to back Obama than those who didn't.

Among white independents, racial stereotyping is not uncommon. For example, while about 20 percent of independent voters called blacks "intelligent" or "smart," more than one third latched on the adjective "complaining" and 24 percent said blacks were "violent."

Nearly four in 10 white independents agreed that blacks would be better off if they "try harder."

The survey broke ground by incorporating images of black and white faces to measure implicit racial attitudes, or prejudices that are so deeply rooted that people may not realize they have them. That test suggested the incidence of racial prejudice is even higher, with more than half of whites revealing more negative feelings toward blacks than whites.

Researchers used mathematical modeling to sort out the relative impact of a huge swath of variables that might have an impact on people's votes — including race, ideology, party identification, the hunger for change and the sentiments of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's backers.

Just 59 percent of her white Democratic supporters said they wanted Obama to be president. Nearly 17 percent of Clinton's white backers plan to vote for McCain.

Among white Democrats, Clinton supporters were nearly twice as likely as Obama backers to say at least one negative adjective described blacks well, a finding that suggests many of her supporters in the primaries — particularly whites with high school education or less — were motivated in part by racial attitudes.

The survey of 2,227 adults was conducted Aug. 27 to Sept. 5. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.1 percentage points.

———

Associated Press writers Nancy Benac, Julie Carr Smyth, Philip Elliot, Julie Pace and Sonya Ross contributed to this story.

From Saturday, Sept 20, 2008 edition of the News Dispatch.

Link to the thread on Racism in MC.

PLEASE, ADMIN, POST THE LETTER IN TODAY'S nd FROM Phyllis DaMota!

Ask, and ye shall receive.

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...ArticleID=18126

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_ele...008/7735503.stm


Viewpoint: Is Barack Obama black?

By Kimberly McClain DaCosta
Harvard University
Is Obama black? It depends on who - and when - you ask.

For some of us, the heralding of Barack Obama as the first black president of the United States seems a rather uncontroversial claim.




Obama isn't black. 'Black,' in our political and social reality, means those descended from West African slaves
Debra J Dickerson
Not so for others. One well-known African American writer, Debra Dickerson, famously objected that Obama is not of the people properly defined as "black" on the grounds that because he is not descended from slaves. Ergo, he is not black - at all.

The bulk of the people protesting against references to Obama as a black man, however, grant that he is "part" black (by way of his father), but assert that because he also has a white mother it is not "accurate" to call him black.

He is "in fact" mixed-race, they say.

Opposing arguments

My first reaction to questions about the "correctness" or "accuracy" of Obama's racial classification is to undermine the premise of the question itself. The search for the "correctness" of racial identity presumes that a definitive answer can be found.



It presumes that race is a real entity, something fixed, or natural. It seems to deny what scholars have laboured for decades to demonstrate - that the criteria used to classify people in racial categories, the categories used in a given society, and the uses to which those categories are put - vary by place and time. They are, as academics are fond of saying, "socially constructed". Yet the predilections of the scholar fail to satisfy those who claim to know what race Obama "is", for these are really statements about what the speaker thinks he ought to be.

When people insist that Obama "is" black, they point to his self-identification as such, and the assertion that when most people look at him, they see a black man.




VIEWPOINTS Kimberly McClain DaCosta is Associate Professor of African and African American Studies and Social Studies at Harvard and the author of Making Multiracials: State, Family and Market in the Redrawing of the Color Line
Calling him "black" seems to acknowledge the connection between his rise and the struggles of a people. When others argue that Obama "is" mixed-race, they point to the fact that he has a white mother, not only a black father, and was raised in an interracial family.

Calling him "mixed-race" seems to acknowledge that family, offering a corrective to centuries of denying our tangled genealogies.

De-stigmatisation

What I find most interesting about the question of what racial label to assign Obama, is that we are asking the question at all.

As recently as 20 years ago, the question of Obama's racial position would be presumed settled before it was even asked.



In keeping with the one-drop rule - the practice of categorising as black anyone with any known African ancestry - Obama's identification as a black person would be expected, accepted and unremarkable. The person suggesting that Obama be classified as mixed-race would quite likely have been met with suspicion or a confused look ("What's that?") since for most of US history, in most places, mixed-race identity has not been collectively recognised.

In the last 20 years, however, the collective efforts of mixed-race people in the US to de-stigmatise interracial families and garner public recognition of mixed race identity have been fairly successful (for example, the US government now enumerates mixed race identities).

Stares

Even so, the question whether Obama is black or mixed-race reflects a basic misunderstanding of the experience of those of us who have grown up in interracial families, particularly those of us of African descent, born in the post-Civil Rights period.




Many of us forged a black identity, one that was not at odds with being mixed-race, but arose out of our experiences as mixed people
We (I have an African American father and an Irish American mother) were raised on the front lines of racial change, where the new rules about interracial intimacy often clashed with the old - both in public and in our own families. The affection we were so comfortable showing our white mothers at home drew stares, and worse, from both whites and blacks in public.

It was in our families where we first felt love and protection as well as the first sting of racial prejudice.

And many of us forged a black identity, one that was not at odds with being mixed-race, but arose out of our experiences as mixed people: from an awareness that the racial dilemma we were born into has its deepest roots in anti-black prejudice.

For us, being black and mixed-race are not mutually exclusive. We have learned to live with the contradictions.

Perhaps it's time for everyone else to learn to live with them too.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/amer...008/7735503.stm

Published: 2008/11/18 12:37:04 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

What shocked me the most is that Bush has screwed up this nation so much that I know a lady who still says the N word, but voted for Obama.

bump

I thought this was worth bumping up for this letter.

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=55759.77

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...&TM=51720.7

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...&TM=51720.7

http://thenewsdispatch.com/articles/2010/0...af116210882.txt

There are some seriously offensive comments on that article. N-D needs to do a better job of moderating.

Yeah, just so people know, that kind of stuff will NEVER fly here. You can have an opinion, but that stuff is way past anything decent.

I see there aren't any comments now. Curious. I guess that's easier than moderating...Jeez.