PDA

View Full Version : Here is proof that Obama is a racist




spiker
06-29-2008, 08:19 PM
Source:
Denver KHOW 630AM
http://www.khow.com

DAN CAPLIS REPORTS: THE OBAMA TAPES
http://www.khow.com/pages/caplisreport.html

sophocles07
06-29-2008, 08:40 PM
Well, just going through some of this:


1. OBAMA CONCLUDES "THAT'S JUST HOW WHITE FOLKS WILL DO YOU"

After listing a few examples of racism directed at him by whites, Obama concludes:

"That's just how white folks will do you. It wasn't merely the cruelty involved; I was learning that black people could be mean and then some.It was a particular brand of arrogance, an obtuseness in otherwise sane people that brought forth our bitter laughter. It was as if whites didn't know that they were being cruel in the first place. Or at leadst thought you deserving of their scorn." pg 80

^^I see no racism.


2. OBAMA SAYS WHITE PEOPLE ARE AFRAID AND HAVE DEMONS

Barack Obama, referring to his reading of the book "Heart of Darkness:"

"...the book teaches me things," I said, "About white people, I mean. See, the book's not really about Africa. Or black people. It's about the man who wrote it. The European. The American. A particular way of looking at the world. If you can keep your distance its all there, in what's said and what's left unsaid."

"So I read the book to help me understand what makes white people so afraid. Their demons. The way ideas get twisted around. It helps me understand how people learn to hate." (emphasis added). Pg 103

^^No racism.


3. OBAMA SAYS THE OTHER RACE WILL ALWAYS REMAIN MENACING AND APART

"The emotions between the races could never be pure; even love was tarnished by the desire to find in the other some element that was missing in ourselves. Whether we sought out our demons or salvation, the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien and apart." Pg 124.

This is so out of context I can make no judgment.


4.OBAMA STOPPED TELLING PEOPLE HIS MOTHER WAS WHITE BECAUSE HE DIDN'T WANT TO INGRATIATE HIMSELF TO WHITES

"..I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of twelve or thirteen when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites..." pg xiv


dictionary.com:

ingratiate: to establish (oneself) in the favor or good graces of others, esp. by deliberate effort (usually fol. by with): He ingratiated himself with all the guests.

No racism here.


5. OBAMA SAYS WHITES SPOKE ENDLESS FALSEHOODS ABOUT BLACKS

"To that white world, I had been willing to cede the values of my childhood, as if those values were irreversibly soiled by the endless falsehoods that white spoke about black." pg 110.

Yeah. He's definitely being racist there.

Are you fucking serious?


6. OBAMA SAYS THAT THE INSTINCTS OF MANY WHITE PEOPLE OF HIS GRANDPARENT'S GENERATION ARE LIKE THOSE OF THE MOB

"...for many white people of my grandparent's generation and background the instincts ran in an opposite direction, the direction of the mob." pg 21

Racist? No.


7.OBAMA ACKNOWLEDGES HIS GENERAL DISTRUST OF WHITE PEOPLE

"It was obvious that certain whites could be exempted from the general category of our distrust," pg 81 (emphasis added).

Racist? No.

And so on.

A lot of this comes from no context, plus the disregard for what a black man might feel when confronted with white racism toward blacks. These feelings are understandable. They aren't "jar-poppingly" racist.

My point, as I'm not an Obama supporter: this kind of attack bullshit is misplaced. You should be talking about his errors in foreign policy, economics, and so on, which all provide enough area to go on without going into these embarrassing Hannity-like "Obama's a racist" / "Obama's pastor's a racist" nonsense attacks.

It lowers any chance at intelligent appearance Ron Paul supporters might have.

sophocles07
06-29-2008, 08:41 PM
Plus, you only have 2 posts.

What's the deal?

slacker921
06-29-2008, 09:13 PM
Plus, you only have 2 posts.

What's the deal?

Maybe... McCain supporters want Paul supporters to go spread this junk around so the attack will come from a Paul supporter and McCain can stay clean. Kind of like how the NC GOP ran that "Obama and Rev Wright" ad just before the NC primary and McCain was so upset about it. Uh huh.

Spiker .. please go spread your news on the John McCain Forum (http://johnmccainforum.com).

ChickenHawk
06-29-2008, 09:14 PM
Obama spent 20 years as a member of a black supremacist church. Does anyone really think that if McCain or Ron Paul or any other white guy had ever been a member of a white supremacist church they would get the benifit of the doubt when it comes to the question of whether or not they are racist?

Considering Obamas thin public record it may be dificult to prove he's a racist or a radical leftist/collectivist but if he is (and I suspect he is) he could easily destroy the Democratic party if he is ever elected president. If the Democratic party is destroyed that can only be good for America.

sophocles07
06-29-2008, 10:56 PM
Obama spent 20 years as a member of a black supremacist church. Does anyone really think that if McCain or Ron Paul or any other white guy had ever been a member of a white supremacist church they would get the benifit of the doubt when it comes to the question of whether or not they are racist?

They don't practice "black supremacy". It's "black liberation"--akin to many Aquinas based "liberation theologies" throughout the third world. If you don't consider these things beyond what Hannity contemplates, then you're being very shallow.


Considering Obamas thin public record it may be dificult to prove he's a racist or a radical leftist/collectivist but if he is (and I suspect he is) he could easily destroy the Democratic party if he is ever elected president. If the Democratic party is destroyed that can only be good for America.

I want the DMC destroyed; I, though, see nothing new besides outward rhetoric to show that Obama is anymore "radical" than Carter, Clinton, or Lyndon Johnson. He's from the same stock.

Paulitician
06-29-2008, 11:45 PM
This is the philosophy behind BLT:

"Black theology cannot accept a view of God which does not represent God as being for oppressed blacks and thus against white oppressors. Living in a world of white oppressors, blacks have no time for a neutral God. The brutalities are too great and the pain too severe, and this means we must know where God is and what God is doing in the revolution. There is no use for a God who loves white oppressors the same as oppressed blacks. We have had too much of white love, the love that tells blacks to turn the other cheek and go the second mile. What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power, which is the power of blacks to destroy their oppressors, here and now, by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject God's love."

"If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill gods who do not belong to the black community."

Sounds pretty racist, victim-laden and Marxist to me. I can't think Obama was part of the Trinity Church for 20 years and didn't pick up on this crap. It's even worse and more ridiculous than classic Christianity. I don't know or care if Obama is racist, however, his Marxist/communist roots worry me more.

Dr.3D
06-29-2008, 11:49 PM
This is the philosophy behind BLT:

"Black theology cannot accept a view of God which does not represent God as being for oppressed blacks and thus against white oppressors. Living in a world of white oppressors, blacks have no time for a neutral God. The brutalities are too great and the pain too severe, and this means we must know where God is and what God is doing in the revolution. There is no use for a God who loves white oppressors the same as oppressed blacks. We have had too much of white love, the love that tells blacks to turn the other cheek and go the second mile. What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power, which is the power of blacks to destroy their oppressors, here and now, by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject God's love."

"If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill gods who do not belong to the black community."

Sounds pretty racist, victim-laden and Marxist to me. I can't think Obama was part of the Trinity Church for 20 years and didn't pick up on this crap. It's even worse and more ridiculous than classic Christianity. I don't know or care if Obama is racist, however, his Marxist/communist roots worry me more.

Exactly, any church that claims to be Christian would know you have to love your enemies as well as those who are not your enemies. Anything else is not being Christian in the least.

TER
06-29-2008, 11:55 PM
It comes down to what one fights for. Truth or power. The problem with the first is that it almost always leads to the second. And when that happens, then it feeds off the other at the expense of life itself.

revolutionary8
06-30-2008, 12:02 AM
This is crap. "they" will try to start a race war. Don't let them. Do not play in to their hands. Obama is not black and what he said, from what I have gathered so far is not racist, rather elitist.
From DAFTEK:
http://www.sdwhiteonline.com/brew_images/ClassiccaseofObamanial_6238/obamasnobxm8.gif

Monolithic
06-30-2008, 12:42 AM
i don't really get the whole elitist thing, i mean you can hate him for his policies, but "elitism"?

i mean, wouldn't you want someone embarrisingly superior to you in charge? the last time we elected the guy you'd like to have a drink with at the bar, we got bush

Dr.3D
06-30-2008, 07:45 AM
i don't really get the whole elitist thing, i mean you can hate him for his policies, but "elitism"?

i mean, wouldn't you want someone embarrisingly superior to you in charge? the last time we elected the guy you'd like to have a drink with at the bar, we got bush

I would like to have a drink at the bar with Ron Paul. Ron Paul ≠ G. W. Bush
Too bad he won't be president this time around.

I don't consider anybody to be 'superior' to me and neither should you.

sophocles07
06-30-2008, 07:59 AM
This is the philosophy behind BLT:

"Black theology cannot accept a view of God which does not represent God as being for oppressed blacks and thus against white oppressors. Living in a world of white oppressors, blacks have no time for a neutral God. The brutalities are too great and the pain too severe, and this means we must know where God is and what God is doing in the revolution. There is no use for a God who loves white oppressors the same as oppressed blacks. We have had too much of white love, the love that tells blacks to turn the other cheek and go the second mile. What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power, which is the power of blacks to destroy their oppressors, here and now, by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject God's love."

"If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill gods who do not belong to the black community."

Sounds pretty racist, victim-laden and Marxist to me. I can't think Obama was part of the Trinity Church for 20 years and didn't pick up on this crap. It's even worse and more ridiculous than classic Christianity. I don't know or care if Obama is racist, however, his Marxist/communist roots worry me more.

Well, obviously it’s victim-laden, it was born out of being literally enslaved, oppressed, and colonized (as in Latin America). It’s not racist if you consider this. You can say it is very, very limited, and perhaps of no use in America today, but it’s not racist—they specify “white oppressors” to mean not “everyone” but those who would lynch people (and who are usually also white) and further continue enslavement.

Now, I don’t like Obama, or this theology, but I think it’s a political rhetorical tool to continue to call Obama a racist and avoid the issues of economics and foreign policy—you play to the worst instincts of KMART shopping spandex wearing illiterates when you do this stuff.


i don't really get the whole elitist thing, i mean you can hate him for his policies, but "elitism"?

i mean, wouldn't you want someone embarrisingly superior to you in charge? the last time we elected the guy you'd like to have a drink with at the bar, we got bush

He’s also not an elitist, another stupid weak charge.

I personally would probably relate to Obama more than McCain or Bush or Clinton simply because the guy comes off like he actually thinks, and could probably discuss things without that McCain grimace. Too bad his politics are fucking rancid.

silus
06-30-2008, 12:04 PM
I saw that link as well... But since I did not read the book, I cant comment with any certainty, but this is what another RP supporter and active campaigner from Kentucky mentioned...



I have read the book and most of what he says is right.

Americans are self absorbed.
Alot of white people are arrogant.
Black people can be cruel
Most white people in the rural south are racist.

constituent
06-30-2008, 12:53 PM
i think generalizing "white people" as the "white oppressor" is very racist.

quite pitiful in fact.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-30-2008, 02:33 PM
Source:
Denver KHOW 630AM
http://www.khow.com

DAN CAPLIS REPORTS: THE OBAMA TAPES
http://www.khow.com/pages/caplisreport.html

Some of us white people were born with the kinds of butt that are devoid of racism and prejudice. This butt is one of them.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-30-2008, 02:38 PM
I would like to have a drink at the bar with Ron Paul. Ron Paul ≠ G. W. Bush
Too bad he won't be president this time around.

I don't consider anybody to be 'superior' to me and neither should you.

What is a shame is that Dr. Ron Paul isn't leading an American Movement. He has chosen instead to lead a strange "Revolution" thing that does something other than reconsecrate the Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution as Holy.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-30-2008, 02:47 PM
i don't really get the whole elitist thing, i mean you can hate him for his policies, but "elitism"?

i mean, wouldn't you want someone embarrisingly superior to you in charge? the last time we elected the guy you'd like to have a drink with at the bar, we got bush

Yes. Not every state of people in the U.S. consider the Federal government as a means to an agenda. We have a great state government here in Texas while it can become even greater if we could get a lot of the people here to go back to Washington DC.
The noble, uhm, superior U.S. President should be standing behind the 50 governors of each state who, in turn, should stand behind the mayors of each city within each state.
I sometimes get the feeling that states up in the Northeast consider Washington D.C. as the place of their local government.

constituent
06-30-2008, 03:07 PM
I sometimes get the feeling that states up in the Northeast consider Washington D.C. as the place of their local government.

might as well, it's right up the road.

sophocles07
06-30-2008, 03:23 PM
i think generalizing "white people" as the "white oppressor" is very racist.

Are they though? Or are they specifying that white people who are (and have) oppressed them are to be seen as explicit enemies?

constituent
06-30-2008, 03:33 PM
Are they though? Or are they specifying that white people who are (and have) oppressed them are to be seen as explicit enemies?

which ones?

per the definition quoted, it certainly sounds like it.

are all adherents of a particular "theology" of stable enough mind to not build on such suggestions (as the "white oppressors") and apply them to any and every "white oppressor" they meet?

imo, that's the primary purpose of religion... to (mis)lead. it's hard to imagine that black liberation theology is any different.

and where is the (oppresion) line drawn? who draws the line?

can a black man or woman be a "white oppressor" if they are in a position of authority and lording it over others?

and what does it matter what color an individual is if they're treating people the wrong way?"

HOLLYWOOD
06-30-2008, 04:04 PM
Maybe... McCain supporters want Paul supporters to go spread this junk around so the attack will come from a Paul supporter and McCain can stay clean. Kind of like how the NC GOP ran that "Obama and Rev Wright" ad just before the NC primary and McCain was so upset about it. Uh huh.

Spiker .. please go spread your news on the John McCain Forum (http://johnmccainforum.com).

Well... Both McCain's and Obama's campaigns and staffers monitor this board all the time, just like the MSM, along with other 3 letter acronym agencies too.

How do you think Huckabee and McCain got all their CONSTITUTIONAL/Campaign ideas? They Never Mentioned CONSTITUTION or Rights/Freedoms PRIOR to Ron Paul's Campaign. They're all Panderers, Instigators, and Liars...

jkm1864
06-30-2008, 04:16 PM
I love how I as a GROUP oppress the black man every time I turn around. I am keeping him down as a group because my group doesn't like them. I love how people blame other people for there inability to get ahead in life.. I mean You have to have someone to blame why because We cannot accept ourselves as being total loosers. You know we blame the mexicans because they took our jobs or we blame the rich white man for keeping us down. Well I blame the federal government and all the lazy americans living on welfare so whats the point. Lets just keep the hate moving because it will never end. I can't wait till God returns then no one will have excuses huh? I would love to see the day where people will have to support themselves honestly meaning no welfare cases or corrupt politicians.

Nirvikalpa
06-30-2008, 04:29 PM
Whites = mob? I would love to see a white politician have a speech about how young black men are involved in gangs.

UPROAR.

Paulitician
06-30-2008, 04:30 PM
Are they though? Or are they specifying that white people who are (and have) oppressed them are to be seen as explicit enemies?
They think anyone, black, white, hispanic, asian etc. who does not support their or is sympathetic to their cause is an oppressor or an "enabler of the system" which oppresses them. They just single out whtes because yes, historically they have oppressed them. They still believe they're being oppressed. I say, bullshit.

sophocles07
06-30-2008, 04:31 PM
are all adherents of a particular "theology" of stable enough mind to not build on such suggestions (as the "white oppressors") and apply them to any and every "white oppressor" they meet?

No, and I agree it's a ridiculous outline of a theology. But I wouldn't go so far as to say they are--and specifically Obama is--"racist." It's obvious they're being reactionary; whether they think all white men are devils (like some in the Nation of Islam), I think is highly unlikely.


imo, that's the primary purpose of religion... to (mis)lead. it's hard to imagine that black liberation theology is any different.

I agree. And Nietzsche would probably have a good number of interesting aphorisms if he came upon such a theology.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-30-2008, 04:33 PM
Are they though? Or are they specifying that white people who are (and have) oppressed them are to be seen as explicit enemies?

Why would African Americans hate the white master who set them free more so than the black master who sold them to the white master for a bargain price that could be as low as 12 souls for a horse? The African American wasn't made a slave in the United States but was sold as a slave from Africa. Such poor souls didn't know how to live in a civilization because there was very little civilization in Western Africa outside of Timbuktu in Mali, Africa.

Paulitician
06-30-2008, 04:39 PM
Well, obviously it’s victim-laden, it was born out of being literally enslaved, oppressed, and colonized (as in Latin America).
Which they obviously no longer are.


It’s not racist if you consider this.
So long as it's "black liberation" theology, yes I would consider it racist.


You can say it is very, very limited, and perhaps of no use in America today
I agree it's no use in America today--however, it's not my opinion of whether its of no use that matters, it is theirs.


but it’s not racist[1]—they specify “white oppressors” to mean not “everyone” but those who would lynch people (and who are usually also white) and further continue enslavement.[2]
Wrong on both counts.


Now, I don’t like Obama, or this theology, but I think it’s a political rhetorical tool to continue to call Obama a racist and avoid the issues of economics and foreign policy—you play to the worst instincts of KMART shopping spandex wearing illiterates when you do this stuff.
I don't care if someone is racist, however, black liberation theology has everything to do with racism as it does economics and foreign policy. They're all linked by the philosophy underlying it.

Ozwest
06-30-2008, 04:46 PM
Judging by the tone of this thread...

McCain might win.

Ozwest
06-30-2008, 04:47 PM
Great.

Can Cheney be V.P?

Paulitician
06-30-2008, 04:54 PM
Judging by the tone of this thread...

McCain might win.
My money is on Obama but things could still change. I think if everyone in America were aware of the type of philosophy Barack Obama supports, they would have second thoughts about the guy. Just putting aside the alleged racism or his theology, a Gallup poll asked a question of whether Americans like wealth distribution to "even things out" and I think more than 80% said hell no.

Ozwest
06-30-2008, 05:07 PM
Ron Paul was the man.

The rest are laggers.

sophocles07
06-30-2008, 05:25 PM
Why would African Americans hate the white master who set them free more so than the black master who sold them to the white master for a bargain price that could be as low as 12 souls for a horse? The African American wasn't made a slave in the United States but was sold as a slave from Africa. Such poor souls didn't know how to live in a civilization because there was very little civilization in Western Africa outside of Timbuktu in Mali, Africa.

True.


Which they obviously no longer are.

You should visit some “low cost housing” (i.e., ghettos).

I would, though, probably just say "poor people" instead of blacks, even though blacks are at the moment more in poverty in terms of percentage.

Ozwest
06-30-2008, 05:32 PM
True.



You should visit some “low cost housing” (i.e., ghettos).

I would, though, probably just say "poor people" instead of blacks, even though blacks are at the moment more in poverty in terms of percentage.

Sounds like you want to wind back the clock.

Move on.

sophocles07
06-30-2008, 05:35 PM
Sounds like you want to wind back the clock.

Move on.

Huh?

Ozwest
06-30-2008, 05:38 PM
Huh?

Sorry.

Read the blue.

Hope you understand.

sophocles07
06-30-2008, 05:40 PM
You are quite vague

and spaced.

silus
07-01-2008, 12:55 PM
Why would African Americans hate the white master who set them free more so than the black master who sold them to the white master for a bargain price that could be as low as 12 souls for a horse? The African American wasn't made a slave in the United States but was sold as a slave from Africa. Such poor souls didn't know how to live in a civilization because there was very little civilization in Western Africa outside of Timbuktu in Mali, Africa.
History, unfortunately for your argument, is based on what occurs over a course of time, as opposed to one specific occurrence. So ask yourself, was slavery the issue, or what occurred after slaves were "freed."



My money is on Obama but things could still change. I think if everyone in America were aware of the type of philosophy Barack Obama supports, they would have second thoughts about the guy. Just putting aside the alleged racism or his theology, a Gallup poll asked a question of whether Americans like wealth distribution to "even things out" and I think more than 80% said hell no.
When your choices are narrowed between essentially two candidates, second thoughts are probably a requisite to voting for either one.

P.S. "Wealth distribution" is not something new, so its rather dishonest to attribute that to Obama.

Paulitician
07-01-2008, 04:28 PM
P.S. "Wealth distribution" is not something new, so its rather dishonest to attribute that to Obama.
For a correction, I meant "wealth REdistribution"

And I never said it was new, however, Obama does believe in it. The question is whether that'd be actual policy under his presidency. With Democrats having control of the Congress and presidency, who knows what kind of ridiculous Keynesian and/or Marxist stuff get's passed.

silus
07-01-2008, 06:04 PM
For a correction, I meant "wealth REdistribution"

And I never said it was new, however, Obama does believe in it. The question is whether that'd be actual policy under his presidency. With Democrats having control of the Congress and presidency, who knows what kind of ridiculous Keynesian and/or Marxist stuff get's passed.
If you accept the premise that McCain is more likely to keep us in war, and start new wars with Iran, for example, then it would seem that we are going to be paying either way. And it also seems that the President is more authoritarian in matters of war vs. economic policy, so you would have a better chance with a neutered democrat in office.

V-rod
07-02-2008, 06:58 PM
Iran with McCain or Pakistan/Darfur with Obama. Take your pic.

Theocrat
07-02-2008, 07:04 PM
Source:
Denver KHOW 630AM
http://www.khow.com

DAN CAPLIS REPORTS: THE OBAMA TAPES
http://www.khow.com/pages/caplisreport.html

Not only is Barack Obama a racist, but so is his wife, Michelle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZi6U811hxE).

Mesogen
07-02-2008, 07:16 PM
So what is Barack Obama schizophrenic or something? Does he hate his mother or his father?

RockEnds
07-02-2008, 08:01 PM
What is a shame is that Dr. Ron Paul isn't leading an American Movement. He has chosen instead to lead a strange "Revolution" thing that does something other than reconsecrate the Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution as Holy.

I'm a little late with this, but are you trying to say the Founding Fathers were Holy? :confused:

DAFTEK
07-02-2008, 09:35 PM
Racist? It's human nature, we all are racist in one way or another so thats not my problem with Obama... The empty suit pic has been over posted....

http://bp2.blogger.com/_lHPPhOSC0bk/SB6VCm2s4lI/AAAAAAAACCI/upfcTLat2Y4/s400/obama_elitist.jpg

revolutionary8
07-02-2008, 09:55 PM
Racist? It's human nature, we all are racist in one way or another so thats not my problem with Obama... The empty suit pic has been over posted....

http://bp2.blogger.com/_lHPPhOSC0bk/SB6VCm2s4lI/AAAAAAAACCI/upfcTLat2Y4/s400/obama_elitist.jpg

Thanks DAFTEK, I figured that came from somewheres. :D

silus
07-03-2008, 01:18 PM
So what is Barack Obama schizophrenic or something? Does he hate his mother or his father?

Many bi-racial kids are a little messed up psychologically. That book is at least 10 years old. I'm not bothered by it.

lasenorita
07-03-2008, 02:15 PM
Many bi-racial kids are a little messed up psychologically.

Would you care to explain your comment?


From The Center for the Study of Biracial Children (http://csbchome.org/?p=5):

Myth: Biracial Children are Messed Up
Reality: Biracial Children Are, as a Group, as Successful as Other Children.


Summary of Ego Identity and Self-Esteem in Biracial Young Adults (http://www.puc.edu/Faculty/Aubyn_Fulton/fulton/research/wpa1.htm):


Increasingly in the last 20 years, study of psychological development in Biracial individuals has focused on empirical assessment of non-clinical populations. Such studies tend to conclude that Biracial individuals do not suffer from any more psychological problems than so-called "monoracial" counterparts (Poussaint, 1984; Brown, 1991; Cauce, et. al., 1992).


Excerpt from Human Behavior in the Social Environment from an African-American Perspective (http://books.google.com/books?id=phiRhxE38MgC&pg=PA196&lpg=PA196&dq=biracial+poussaint&source=web&ots=YqQBE4EEZD&sig=0pJ41Ceaeq4ESCuAEDifOf2xnC8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result)


Poussaint summarized that biracial individuals are a successful group of people in this society. He also concluded that the stereotypes about their chances of success, their ability to cope, and their identity problems are erroneous. Stereotypes and assumptions about mongrelization were not identified or confirmed in the interviews in which he conducted.

silus
07-10-2008, 03:09 AM
Would you care to explain your comment?


From The Center for the Study of Biracial Children (http://csbchome.org/?p=5):

Myth: Biracial Children are Messed Up
Reality: Biracial Children Are, as a Group, as Successful as Other Children.


Summary of Ego Identity and Self-Esteem in Biracial Young Adults (http://www.puc.edu/Faculty/Aubyn_Fulton/fulton/research/wpa1.htm):


Increasingly in the last 20 years, study of psychological development in Biracial individuals has focused on empirical assessment of non-clinical populations. Such studies tend to conclude that Biracial individuals do not suffer from any more psychological problems than so-called "monoracial" counterparts (Poussaint, 1984; Brown, 1991; Cauce, et. al., 1992).


Excerpt from Human Behavior in the Social Environment from an African-American Perspective (http://books.google.com/books?id=phiRhxE38MgC&pg=PA196&lpg=PA196&dq=biracial+poussaint&source=web&ots=YqQBE4EEZD&sig=0pJ41Ceaeq4ESCuAEDifOf2xnC8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result)


Poussaint summarized that biracial individuals are a successful group of people in this society. He also concluded that the stereotypes about their chances of success, their ability to cope, and their identity problems are erroneous. Stereotypes and assumptions about mongrelization were not identified or confirmed in the interviews in which he conducted.
That first link is offers little more than a weak, general opinion and I advise never to use it again. The second link doesnt work. The third actually supports my statement earlier in the page, but regarding the passage you quoted, I cannot find where his conclusion is substantiated. I could care less about the final judgment.

But anyways, I dont need a case study to identify and validate the obvious. And for clarification, this is not even fundamentally about bi-racial people. Its about operating as an extreme racial minority in a context where racial association/identity is significant in ones ability to function and interact. This is 1984 the author was talking about. Thats BS. I need to see his entire study.

V-rod
07-10-2008, 11:03 AM
Racist? It's human nature, we all are racist in one way or another so thats not my problem with Obama... The empty suit pic has been over posted....

http://bp2.blogger.com/_lHPPhOSC0bk/SB6VCm2s4lI/AAAAAAAACCI/upfcTLat2Y4/s400/obama_elitist.jpg

Finally, the Barack, has come BACK to Washington D.C.
The Barack is kicking ass and taking names as he continues to electrifyin the millions...and millions of the Barack Fans. So if you SMELLLLLLL lalalalala owww... what..the Barack...is... COOKIN'

The_Orlonater
07-10-2008, 01:36 PM
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a279/darth-enigmus/thread-fail-stamp.gif

Seriously, stop bashing Obama racially. Learn to destroy him on political perspectives.

werdd
07-11-2008, 05:38 AM
"See, obama talkin down to black folks with this faith based, gonna get his nuts chopped off"

DAFTEK
07-11-2008, 06:37 AM
"See, obama talkin down to black folks with this faith based, gonna get his nuts chopped off"


http://www.hitchcorner.com/hitch_covers/bull_balls/bullballs_brown.jpg

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
07-11-2008, 07:57 AM
Well, just going through some of this:
^^I see no racism.
^^No racism.
This is so out of context I can make no judgment.
dictionary.com:
ingratiate: to establish (oneself) in the favor or good graces of others, esp. by deliberate effort (usually fol. by with): He ingratiated himself with all the guests.
No racism here.
Yeah. He's definitely being racist there.
Are you fucking serious?
Racist? No.
Racist? No.
And so on.
A lot of this comes from no context, plus the disregard for what a black man might feel when confronted with white racism toward blacks. These feelings are understandable. They aren't "jar-poppingly" racist.
My point, as I'm not an Obama supporter: this kind of attack bullshit is misplaced. You should be talking about his errors in foreign policy, economics, and so on, which all provide enough area to go on without going into these embarrassing Hannity-like "Obama's a racist" / "Obama's pastor's a racist" nonsense attacks.
It lowers any chance at intelligent appearance Ron Paul supporters might have.

If we assume that the picaninny caricature was a myth, that the socalled "******" in the wood pile was a myth and that the average mentality of every black man is that of a boy was a myth, then we also have to believe that the notion is a myth when it is claimed that white, uneducated southern people are racists simply because they choose to grow food instead of attending a university. Try making a rational argument without using the "R" word, please. Using the "R" word conveys the same exact kinds of hate as when people use the "N" one.

Anti Federalist
07-11-2008, 06:51 PM
If we assume that the picaninny caricature was a myth, that the socalled "******" in the wood pile was a myth and that the average mentality of every black man is that of a boy was a myth, then we also have to believe that the notion is a myth when it is claimed that white, uneducated southern people are racists simply because they choose to grow food instead of attending a university. Try making a rational argument without using the "R" word, please. Using the "R" word conveys the same exact kinds of hate as when people use the "N" one.

Well whaddya know UEW, we agree.