08-17-2020, 10:24 AM
(08-16-2020, 06:16 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, I did not mention it as a rear guard to protect a racial status quo though. Also, sorry in advance for answering real selectively, for while the history of Texas university is an interesting read, I have little to add to that and I also feel it takes the whole debate a bit too far. Who was allowed when in what marching band is a bit far fetched. I get that you try to draw parallels and it is not lost on me why and why that might be legit.
- I really feel that the Democratic party, and the more left leaning media, tends to forcibly overcompensate for the historic white sin. Often more in humble words and less in deed, sure. It is tough to put this in examples that can not be construed as racist or at least deeply ignorant if one wishes to do so, so I keep it somewhat short. But let's take poverty as an example. Many bad positions blacks are put in are, imho, actually not inherently a racist problem, but an economic problem. A problem of poor people of all races and genders being offered little pathway to escape their circumstances. That certainly is particularly prevalent when it comes to black people, and mainly not by their own fault, but indeed as a result of long-lasting and ongoing disadvantages. But that does not mean that the answer to it just lies in just considering race and declaring all economic questions racial questions. You always make it out to be. Just help the poor! That's a good thing! Helps many blacks too, right? But the rhetoric is quite different. It's made about race all the time when it really inherently isn't or doesn't have to be. Now George Floyd, that, in comparison, absolutely is a racial issue of course. Poverty, not so much. One could easily argue that the candidate that had the best policies to fight poverty, hence also helping many black people, was Bernie Sanders and not Kamala Harris. Yet she's the black candidate for VP now and blacks are expected to scream in joy. Expected to do so by the same legions of pundits that when it came to Bernie only had to say that he is yet another white old male and that was the end of it. That, imho, is a disconnect.
Of course, blacks do not really benefit from this rhetoric too, because it's often just window dressing, often just saying the nice and racially sensitive thing, or using the racist card against someone to take him or her down, and in reality nothing changes and black people stay as marginalized and disadvantaged as ever, but get something shiny to compensate. And saying we need a black woman as VP imho inherently just falls into this category. Also, the first SC nominee has to be a black woman as well. Why? Dems already nominated three women, is having yet another woman really the most and only important thing regarding a SC seat? And further, did Clarence Thomas help the black community, is it even an effective strategy to put on a certain ethnicity to reward or pander to said ethnicity? I don't know. To me it all is so mendacious.
Except when they picked the black dude recently. Twice.
And why no black woman? Sure, it's because they were and are disadvantaged. Also, they are 8% of the population and hence 92% are not. It's not that inherently puzzling that there aren't more black women in high positions. It is, I agree with that, a result of unfair treatment for decades and ongoing. No doubt about that. A black female VP alone won't change a thing about that though. Recognition? I am not so sure that helps. No one will say oh we have a black female VP now, guess I better pay black women fairly now. Laws and policies can do that, and that is achieved by a person with competence, not by a person of a certain race and gender.
Again, what I'd find a better approach is just picking Kamala and listing all her merits, and you can very well include that her race and gender makes her uniquely suited to understand this specific problem better than most. This only works if you haven't already committed to a black woman though.
I mean, why did Biden commit to a black woman? It was because he knew the first primaries might not quite go his way and his chances lie in the "blacker" states that will follow. That's it. And yeah that criteria is free of any consideration of merit. That's not on me, it's not on Biden either, it's on the system and the climate.
I have no issue saying the first sentence. If they hear a racist trope, then that's not on me and as sympathetic as I want to be, I don't feel like giving in to false or exaggerated sensitivities. I get why sly politics might look differently, but phew. This constant forced connection to right-wing rhetoric is exactly what I was talking about. It is NOT racist and NOT an endorsement of confederate ideals to pick someone else but a black woman for VP or the SC. I wish people would stop implying the opposite.
Again, no shot at Harris implied. But when you commit to a black woman before considering any specific black woman, then you declare blackness and gender as a form of competence in itself and in advance. Saying so is just stating the plain.
I think many people not sitting in Vienna think the same thing. What I say imho is not inherently ignorant or illogical.
Well stated and I applaud you for taking the time. If Biden really wanted to help a marginalized group he would have committed to a Native American woman. But their aren't enough Native Americans to help him get elected, hence the choice he made. It is, as you correctly point out, the very definition of pandering.
