Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Contemplating the race card in the election deck

JOHN IBBITSON

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 1:21 PM EST 20/07/08

New poll confirms, once again, how starkly race cleaves the American electorate ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. CM Chen from Toronto, Canada writes: America today is a melting pot type of country. Yet many including the media put labels and pidgeon-hole people into this race versus that race.

    Why is Tiger Wood black? If one have to dissect the % ethnicity, he is more Asian than black or white.

    Not knowing how pure Obama parentage are, he may be no more black than white. But in the end should we really care that much?

    President should be elected on basis of qualification, experience and policies. Apparently that is easier said than done.
  2. Gerry Pankhurst from westport ontario, Canada writes: The race is on. Pun intended.
  3. Jay Bronwin from Gatineau, Canada writes: Obama represents hope against the the "clinging" mentality over race and religion. He may disappoint, but look at the alternative, the world does not need 4 years of a Bush clone.
  4. Mark H from Columbus, IN, United States writes: Yawn......83% of whites voting for a white candidate is racism. 83% of blacks voting for a black candidate isn't. That's the elephant in the room.
  5. Free The West from Free the West, Canada writes: The race card is the only reason that Obama has gotten this far as a candidate.
  6. David Smith from Canada writes: As a rule, Americans have never taken well to political satire. One thinks of the brilliant British puppet series Spitting Images of which an American version lasted only weeks as it was seen as offensive. Their over-stated sense of patriotism, which they regard as a huge virtue, kind of gets in the way of the thinking process ( a clear case of intellectual baggage) and certainly stimies satire. I exect that Obama, both because of his African heritage and his overall appeal is a particulalry difficult subject for a satirist. But it can be done....a few months ago I saw John Stewart on "Larry King" mock the that Obama charisma by saying: " He'll cure my cancer!" But then again, Stewart and Colbert are rare birds...American satirists who can actually be outrageous and get away with it, for which in my view, they can thank the excesses of the Bush Administration.
  7. Lowen Wrainger from Canada writes: What would happen if Barack was invited to sing in Quebec City (see another article in today's GM) instead of Paul McCartney? Would the uproar then be about race or English, or what?
  8. Oswaldo I from Canada writes: I find that writers who claim others are missing the point are generally missing the point themselves. The article seems to theorize that the difference in support for Obama amongst whites and blacks is because of white reluctance to vote for a black man. The author whites only about why people are not supporting Obama as though that were the natural state of things. I would argue that the white support in this poll and in the voting has been pretty well split but the black support and vote has been overwhelmingly for Obama. Given that he was running in the primaries against someone who did pretty well amongst blacks in her senate campaigns, it is obvious that many blacks are voting for him because of the colour of his skin. It is not clear that his race is having any affect amongst white voters.
  9. Mark H from Columbus, IN, United States writes: "Oswaldo I from Canada writes: I find that writers who claim others are missing the point are generally missing the point themselves. The article seems to theorize that the difference in support for Obama amongst whites and blacks is because of white reluctance to vote for a black man. The author whites only about why people are not supporting Obama as though that were the natural state of things"

    That's because the tacit assumption is that all whites are racist to the core.
  10. Jim **** from Canada writes: It's not just about skin colour. Conservatives would fall all over themselves to vote for Colin Powell if he was running against Hillary Clinton. Because Powell is a 'good black'.

    Obama is trying to run as a 'good black'. Too many people smell hipocrisy. He would have been better to run flat out as a liberal, the change agent he promised to be. The conservative movement is discredited and almost dead, and he would have swept them out to sea.

    If he'd followed that tack the fight would have been over his liberal values. But because he's not defending liberal values, they are focussing on his skin colour, and all of the ancient baggage that goes with it.
  11. Philip McRae from Vancouver, Canada writes: Racism.Yes. 20% of whites say race is an issue and may or may not vote for a black candidate, 70% think America is ready to elect a black president. While 85% of black Americans are voting for Obama. Racism. Oh yes, but which one are we talking about?
  12. Joe Calgarian from Calgary, Canada writes: Not having lived in the states, I'll admit I just don't 'get it'. That said, it seems to me that Blacks in America have a culture of defeatism, much like Natives do in Canada. Meanwhile instead of b!tching about 'Whitey' keeping them down Hispanics and Asian Americans keep their mouths shut and keep improving their lives.
  13. Joe Calgarian from Calgary, Canada writes: One more thing, I'm really getting tired of the prevalance of reverse discrimination, it's become institutionalized in the States. Why is it you can have the Black Entertainment Television (BET), but if someone tried to establish the WET there'd be a huge outcry. Why can anyone compete in Miss America, but only Black women compete in miss Black America? Why if a White talk show host says something disparaging he's crucified, but a Black person says the same thing or worse it's just laughed off. Finally why can't people (of ALL races) judge someone by their actions and personality and not by the color of their skin?
  14. Michael B from Canada writes: Joe, you're an a$$hole. Almost all of the Black people in the US were 'imported' and lived as slaves until fairly recently. Hispanics and Asians mostly immigrated. Do you see the difference? Also, black people are alot more likely to be discriminated against than Hispanics and Asian Americans. And this article is not about "Whitey' keeping them down, nor is Barrack Obama. In fact, if you'd read his speech about racism, you'd see he rises above that. Also, leave the Natives alone, the Europeans came in and coldly wiped most of them out with unkept deals, killing, and contagion-infested blankets. If the same were done nowadays we'd call it a holocaust, probably. So back off those who remain, have to live in a society with those who did that, not to mention residential schools, government mistreatment, etc etc etc.
  15. Philip McRae from Vancouver, Canada writes: Joe Calgarian, because the victim mentality is the "high moral ground" of those who can not successfully compete through merit. The blame game covers for so much cultural and personal failure.
  16. Michael B from Canada writes: One more thing, Joe. Reverse discrimination is the complaint of the ignorant white power flag wavers. If you watch TV, almost everyone on it is white, and so we already have WET. Also, there is alot more cultural racism from the white vs others perspective, and so it's alot more out of line for the majority who already hold power to go out of their way to further put down the minority. If the minority decides to comment on what the majority have subjected them to, well, that's a bit more fair. They don't have a regular voice in everyday life.
  17. Kim Philby from Ottawa, Canada writes: "And the answer...will be defined by the fact he is black." Well, actually, he's half black. So, if he's half white and half black, why is he automatically placed in the black category? It strikes me that there's something sneakily racist about that, as if he must be identified as being tainted.

    I hope he's elected and gets the chance to repair some of the damage done over the last eight years. I'd be afraid to walk in his presidential shoes, though - too many lunatic fringe racists in the U.S. who wouldn't take kindly to his being in the Oval office.
  18. Jennie MacCrae from Ontario from Canada writes: Racism is alive and well in America and Canada, most of it is hiding beneath the surface but can be seen so clearly, simply by taking the time to look around to see who is 'ruling' particularly in policies and laws. Education (a good one, not one run by religious and political ideologies) and communication are the keys to eliminating racism and ignorance.
  19. Joe Calgarian from Calgary, Canada writes: Michael B, way to argue your point without resorting to name calling. If a people cannot leave the past in the past then they can never move forward. My ancestors were likely slaughtered by Vikings relatively recently as well, yet I don't hold a grudge against Scandanavian people. More likely to be discrimanted against? On what do you base that? Reverse discrimination is a FACT. A Black racist is no less a racist than a White one. As for your minority comment, (brace yourself) Whites ARE a minority, and with birth rates continuing to decline in the so called 1st world nations this trend will only continue. Ever lived in Vancouver or Toronto?
  20. Jennie MacCrae from Ontario from Canada writes: Joe Calgarian from Calgary, Canada:

    ** I don't doubt that there is racism on all sides, however the people ruling in any Western country are 'white'. It is the white race that have the higher paying jobs and higher status jobs, therefore they are the ones in power and have the power to control.
  21. Billy Talon from Toronto, Canada writes: Joe Calgarian from Calgary, Canada writes: Michael B, way to argue your point without resorting to name calling. If a people cannot leave the past in the past then they can never move forward. My ancestors were likely slaughtered by Vikings relatively recently as well, yet I don't hold a grudge against Scandanavian people. More likely to be discrimanted against?

    ***

    Your ancestors being slaughtered 300, 500 or 600 years ago is not the same as having ancestors who were slaves in the 1800's - or who were just finally allowed to vote in the US in the 1960's (although being granted the 'right' in the 1870's).

    But I do agree with some of your position - my problem is what is the black community doing to combat the biggest problem holding them back - single parent families.
  22. francesco galassi from ferrara, Italy writes: A wee anecdote (part 1):

    Last June I had to catch an early plane from Baltimore to Toronto. The shuttle picked me up at about 4 am and inevitably the driver and I started talking about the Democratic nominee. After some humming and hawing, the driver said:

    "Ya know, every [black man] in this country thinks if Obama gets in, they'll finally get their forty acres and a mule. And ya know, 'tain't gonna happen, no way." - (Ok, he used a somewhat stronger expression than "black man", but you the drift).

    Is that a racist comment? You tell me.

    I will check the comments again later and see what kind of response I get before I finish the story.
  23. Jim **** from Canada writes: The only person likely to use the n-word in a taxi in Baltimore is a black man. Is that the ending to your story?
  24. Joe Calgarian from Calgary, Canada writes: Billy Talon, so how is 300 years better or worse than 200 years? What exactly is the cutoff for letting the past be the past?

    Francesco, I personally find the N word to be distasteful, however lots of Black people use the term themselves. So who knows...
  25. Old Sam Dark and Dirty from Republic of Newfoundland, Canada writes: If you look at the numbers for the different questions it is plain to see who drives racism in the US. It is the black community and their leaders. It is the only crutch they have left to make excuses for thier underpar educations and low incomes and high crime rates.

    Obviously the overwhelming majority of white people in the US don't see race as that big of a problem. But the opposite is true of blacks why? Because their leaders, pastosr and media tell them they are being left behind because they are black. They refuse to acknowlege the real reasons for their failures.

    When Bill Cosby pointed this out a couple of years ago the black community revolted and called him a racist......Bill friggin Cosby a Racist? Then reverend Jackson basically says the same thing about Obama because he dared tell the truth and basically said what Cosby did.
  26. Archie 1954 from Vancouver, Canada writes: Just watch which electoral areas vote for who in the next election. I think you will find that poor rural white areas will vote McCain. It's probably more a case of lack of education then deepseated racial prejudice which will govern the voting at least in those areas.
  27. Jennie MacCrae from Ontario from Canada writes: Old Sam Dark and Dirty writes: "the overwhelming majority of white people in the US don't see race as that big of a problem. But the opposite is true of blacks why?"

    ** You answered your own question in which I completely disagree with. I would argue that the white race is complaining as you can see some of the comments on this board about 'reverse racism', which in my opinion is not a problem. The reason most whites are not complaining is because they are not ones living in poverty. The highest percentage goes to the African American/Canadian, then the Aboriginal. The failure is not solely on them but on society's unwillingness to accept them as well. The whites are in power and control the 'hiring' aspect of employment, they also control the education and justice system.
  28. Old Sam Dark and Dirty from Republic of Newfoundland, Canada writes: Jennie MacCrae from Ontario from Canada.........

    Jennie you must be a Jessie Jackson fan club member......still buying those excuses and looking to blame Whitey for all the black persons problems.
  29. Mark H from Columbus, IN, United States writes: "Michael B from Canada writes: Joe, you're an a$$hole. Almost all of the Black people in the US were 'imported' and lived as slaves until fairly recently"

    Fairly recently is 150 years ago for you? Who are you, Methuseleh?

    The funny thing about cries of discrimenation is that they're mostly unsubstantiated. The institutionalized debasement of blacks in America simply does not exist. I think you see evidence of that....over the last 30 years blacks have increased their relative standing more than the average white. The average income and education of the average black person still lags most other ethnicities, but if you look at percentage change, as a group blacks have "come further" than other ethnicities.

    At any rate, given the preponderance of opportunity (especially scholarship dollars) that exist for blacks, and for that matter non-whites, I have a tough time accepting the victimhood mentality of some classes of people.

    That's the one thing I like about Obama; he's not afraid to call out black culture, warts and all. Anyone who Jesse Jackson doesn't like is automatically OK in my book.
  30. Jim **** from Canada writes: So we agree. Race shouldn't matter. Now why don't we demand that the media stop focussing on such meaningless characteristic.
  31. Billy Talon from Toronto, Canada writes: Joe Calgarian from Calgary, Canada writes: Billy Talon, so how is 300 years better or worse than 200 years? What exactly is the cutoff for letting the past be the past?

    ***

    Maybe 300 years was a bad example. The point I was trying to make was that slavery in the US/Canada wasn't that long ago.

    Just because the slaves were 'freed' after the Civil War, doesn't necessarily mean that blacks were treated as equals.

    That said, to me, the past is the past. Be it 5, 10, 25 years ago, you move on and better yourself.
  32. Seneca Sanford from Canada writes: Mark H:

    First of all, you realize that the 83 percent of blacks that would vote for Obama are about the SAME percentage that voted for Bill Clinton... and John Kerry... and Michael Dukakis... need I continue? However, there are most certainly Whites that normally vote democrat that won't because they don't want a black guy running the country. That, my friend, is called racism.

    As for your stats saying that the socioeconomic status of Blacks has risen more sharply than whites in the last 30 years... well, I sure hope so. The average standard of living of people in India has probably risen more than that of the US in the last 10 years, but that doesn't mean they're not still living in mud huts.

    I'm for personal responsibility as much as the next guy, but don't use stats to completely misrepresent reality.
  33. Carolyn Bongiorno from Glenham,NY, United States writes: Sen. Obama is facing an uphill battle, but he has all along.

    Some posters clearly know very little about the U.S., its history and the issues that are currently affecting life here.

    Voters are free to cast ballots for whomever they please. When Americans tell pollsters the reasons why they voted for a candidate, some admit to racial bias. Those of you who claim that racism has been eliminated need only look at our failing public schools, the predatory lending practices that have fueled the mortgage meltdown, banks redlining and refusing to provide loans to people based on factors like where they live, and the pervasive practice of steering and block-busting in the real estate industry. Blacks and whites do not yet have equality of opportunity here because of institutionalized discrimination that is largely based on where we live: segregated housing and neighborhoods.
  34. City Pig from Toronto, Canada writes: I think Obama should hire the Reverend Jesse Jackson to be his campaign manager. He can use the "N" word.
  35. John Stanton from Somewhere near New Liskeard, Canada writes: >> "Michael B from Canada writes: Joe, you're an a$$hole."

    Michael B, since you're from Canada, land of the free and home of the polite, could you in future express your opinions with respect for other people, even if you disagree with their thoughts?

    Thanks so much.
  36. Dave B from Canada writes: Jennie MacCrae from Ontario from Canada writes: Old Sam Dark and Dirty writes: "the overwhelming majority of white people in the US don't see race as that big of a problem. But the opposite is true of blacks why?"

    ** You answered your own question in which I completely disagree with. I would argue that the white race is complaining as you can see some of the comments on this board about 'reverse racism', which in my opinion is not a problem

    -----------------------------
    Are you white? If so, why do you hate yourself so much? A typical "Jennie" statement. "Racism is ok as long as whites don't do it". Your hypocrisy is so blatant.
  37. Troubled Youth from Everywhere, Canada writes: One could posit that Obama is a racist. He had a choice to pursue his white heritage or black and because he is brown skinned chose black heritage and sought out the Jeremiah Wrights to back up that racial decision. Barack Obama, young 46 years old American male of colour who was elected to the Senate and is running for President of the U.S. of A and if elected will be due to an overwhelming percentage of white voters is under the gun of American racial discrimination. Never mind the many black American Mayors, Senators, or Governors. Black Americans are supposedly disenfranchised by white society and it's done purposely. Am I really the only one who finds this to be contradictory and a made up issue to perpetuate the racial divide that barely exist according to the pollsters own poll. What a bunch of sheeple.
  38. Jennie MacCrae from Ontario from Canada writes: As I said earlier, racism is alive and well and look who it's coming from, you know who you are.
  39. francesco galassi from ferrara, Italy writes: A wee anecdote (part 2)

    Good for you, that's exactly the ending to my story.

    The driver was black

    Now, can someone help me make sense of this? Or is there no sense in this entire "black" issue?
  40. Jennie MacCrae from Ontario from Canada writes: francesco galassi from ferrara, Italy:

    ** This is simple and nothing new. Anyone can be racist against anyone and you can also be racist against your own kind. There is a term used for this but I forgot the name, first year sociology class, but it makes perfect sense to me.
  41. francesco galassi from ferrara, Italy writes: Thank you for your comment, Jennie MacCrae. You are right, of course. But wait, that is NOT the point. It does not matter whether that particular taxi driver used a non-PC word to refer to blacks. The issue is the rest of the sentence: "every [black man] in this country thinks if Obama gets in, they'll finally get their forty acres and a mule. And ya know, 'tain't gonna happen, no way." Doesn't matter what you call the people who have that expectation, fuchsia, pink or green polkadot: my question was referring to the expectation. Is that expectation there? Do people have it? Is Obama (NOT the descendant of slaves, by the way) seen as the final "getting even"? The historical compensation? The drawing up of old accounts? The long-sought reckoning? It's the expectation that worries me, you see: "forty acres and a mule." It tells me "someone had better do something about me 'cause my great-great-great-so-and-so was a slave." (My great-great-great-so-and-so was a peasant in the hills of central Italy, and not much better than a slave). If that is the reason to vote for Mr Obama, it is a very poor, shallow reason. It is a frankly racist reason. It is, in fact, the worst possible reason. First, ya ain't gonna get yo' forty acres and a mule. Second, even if you got 'em, you'd need to do a darn sight better than expect to be given them if you want to keep them and turn them into 80 acres and 2 mules and 5 cows. That is what I want someone to explain to me: is this not clear? Not evident? Not understood? What? What am I missing?
  42. Jennie MacCrae from Ontario from Canada writes: francesco galassi from ferrara, Italy:

    ** Perhaps the expectation is there, I don't know for sure, but because much of there past has been stolen from them, their progression as a race is behind because of slavery. Maybe they do feel that society 'owes' them something. I agree this is not a good reason to vote for someone and it is also an illusion. Obama must run a country of different races which will not take kindly to favouritism. I don't know if I would call this expectation racism but just that 'expectation' for the reasons mentioned. Interesting question though.
  43. MKK Flatron from Canada writes: All this name-calling around Obama and the whole controversy over him being a Muslim-sympathizer and such smacks of racism. Conservative 'commentators' who bash Obama daily would like to say one word starting with the alphabet N to describe him, but it is forbidden so they are beating around the bush.

    Having said that, Obama is no ideal candidate for the first minority president of America either. I agree that a 'good black' such as Collin Powell would have been far more popular and less controversial. Obama is too controversial for anyone's good, will not heal the subtle rift between different races, and will likely disappoint in terms of his presidential performance.
  44. james raider from V, Canada writes: HILLARY MAY BE ANTICIPATING A DIFFERENT OUTCOME AT THE CONVENTION

    The Democratic convention is not over and done with.

    http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/07/is-clintons-presidential-campaign.html
  45. MR. oz from Canada writes: Call me a racist if you want to! I would not vote for a black person, a green person, anyone from the middle east or anyone from the orient, I will not vote for a refugee or a native person, I will vote only forsomeone who is a member of my own race! Psta!

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top