The white vs. off-white election

It's bizarre that so many posters interpreted Daum's column as pro-Obama or anti-White. If it betrays any bias at all, it's in favor of Clinton. Ms. Daum is clearly not belittling the white working class voters of West Virginia. Quite the opposite. If she's belittling anyone, it's privileged "yuppies" (those satirized on the "White People Like site), i.e., Obama voters. She explicitly points out that working class white folks are "unprotected by political correctness," she criticizes the media's "mobile home" stereotyping, and warns that non-privileged whites are voters who deserve representation. One can only conclude that the paranoid posters didn't bother to read the column.

It's articles like this and the website that it refers to, that breed racism and keep it going. I can't believe that somebody would write an editorial like this and that somebody would post it. Go RACISM!!!

Drew wrote:

Was this really a colum written in the Tribune? If they changed the wording to black and blacky would they get away with it? I'll bet dawn would be one of the first to start crying. This is garbage.

Drew- reread the article. You've got it completely backwards. The writer is saying the exact opposite of what you describe.

"Smart people on the other hand are able to see though the media cloud and make their own decisions without the need to be cool. " Really?

I understand that many people who have rightfully earned the name elitist are drawn to Obama, but does that mean that being drawn to Obama makes us elitist? Where's the causal relationship here? I'd argue that there are plenty of conservative elitists too. And why is it that educated people seem to be banned from natural or critical intelligence? I know many people who like Obama on his merits. And I'm sure there are plenty of McCain supporters who would turn up their noses at his likely feigned interest in NASCAR. Oversimplification is not the answer here.

1) SWPL is the lamest blog I've ever seen...how that guy got a six-figure book deal is beyond me.

2) I'm white, and I like Hillary. Yes, better than Obama, but Obama would be better than McBush.

This has me thinking two ways. I am somewhat ticked that "educated" (or elitist) whites presume that they know what is better for the country than anyone else, as is suggested. Being upper middle-class, and white, I don't think I fit into the mold of what I am apparently expected to be, and found myself offended that someone would expect me to.

Then imagine my chagrin when I figured out that this must be what people of a "black", "hispanic", or whatever background you wish to throw in must mean when they are offended. If this was the purpose, then it worked.

Well, they may not be as privileged as the latte sipping denizens of an elitist joke like "stuff White people like," but they still enjoy privileges that they aren't even aware of, for the most part. No one will ever stop them for driving while black. If they're walking through Macy's and someone says, "may I help you?" they can safely assume that the person wants to sell them something and isn't just checking up on them. If they're applying for a job, odd are much greater that the person hiring (and certainly the person owning and running) the business is white, and if they take medication, they can safely assume that the vast majority of the people on whom that medication was tested for safety and effectiveness were also white. None of this diminishes the real impact of economic exploitation of working class white people, but it does help to disguise it.

Substitute WOMEN for BLACK and lets see what W virginians think.

1. Women had to fight for the right to vote.
2. Women are paid less than men

but now

1. Women are bosses to many men
2. Women are CEOs at compaines.

This is just so bizarre. I thought the Democratic party was supposed to be the bleeding heart party that wants to help out the poor and undereducated. Instead, a significant segment of the party is treating the poor and undereducated like some crazy uncle that only gets let out of the attic at Christmastime. The web site sounds pretty vapid (not that I'd ever visit it.) I like opera, French impressionists, ballet, subtitled movies, and a bunch of things that Lander would probably label as "white," but I also like Clinton better than Obama. I have a sinking feeling that Obama wants to take my money and give it to labor unions or something.

renee wrote:

Hope,
I think you mistook my post. I don't think this article was praise for the differences among the white race either. I thought it was exactly the opposite, quite frankly.It was a pot shot at the white working class, and yes it is shameful. I fully agree with everything you are saying. I was just trying to draw a parallel to the article and what has been said about minorities for years. I simply wanted to point out just because it was talking about white people( and not a "minority" in this instance,) it was no less offensive.and had the reek of stereotyping, and classism just the same.

Did NONE of you people understand this? It has NOTHING to do with race. in the traditional sense of the word. What this website is, is a class stratification website. And since the upper class has traditionally and always been White Anglo Saxon Protestant, in America and throughout the West, there you have the white focus.

If you are black, and meet the criteria, which has nothing to do with race, you are welcome to the club.

Even the author of the article didn't get it.

Call me cockroach wrote:

This has me thinking two ways. I am somewhat ticked that "educated" (or elitist) whites presume that they know what is better for the country than anyone else, as is suggested. Being upper middle-class, and white, I don't think I fit into the mold of what I am apparently expected to be, and found myself offended that someone would expect me to.
Then imagine my chagrin when I figured out that this must be what people of a "black", "hispanic", or whatever background you wish to throw in must mean when they are offended. If this was the purpose, then it worked.

Then don't ever elct anyone from teh Boston-Washington corridor or the west coast. They still think of everyone in the middle (though without us they would starve) as hayseeds.

Don't think the elites of NY ever think of Chicago as anything but a dirty, second class city that is beneath them. Of course their lovely concrete and steel Manhattan may fall in the ocean one day, hence the investment of the east coast n luxery condos and skyscrapers in Chicago's Loop.

Daley is dumb enough to not see this, and greedy enough to allow it, without realizing that when they are finished with Chicago's transformation, they will walk all over him and push him right into the Lake. He will be nothing more to them than a used tire.

orly wrote:

<quoted text>
What If Liberation Theology really is racist. Is it shocking that so many non-african americans read and hear it and say "that's scary racist talk". Liberation Theology regardless of what group that's latched onto it, is linked with Marxist scholars. That alone is troubling. When you examine Rev. Wright's sermons in particular, he seems very similar to a secular leader. That is interesting when you consider other articles speaking about the creeping atheism in the black church, and within left leaning churches in general. It's a huge problem in the Church of England, where the leader Rowan Williams has been accused of being a closet Atheist on more than one occasion. TBH, I kind of agree with his critics.

Then don't elect Rev. Wright when he runs for president.

I find the different takes on the article to be very interesting as it illustrates the filters with which we all view the world through. To me the salient point of the article is identifying the widening economic divide in the US. Racism, bigotry, & misogyny have always been based on fear of loss of wherewithal. The poor are and always will be a majority, and with the continuing government policies of creating a favorable business environment for multi-national corporations the club is getting bigger every day. The debate this election should be about is what is the purpose of a nation, supporting business or supporting the principles, this nation was founded on. The beauty of the US Constitution is that despite being written by the elite of the time it empowers all of us. BTW - Capitalism does have a dark side, TNSTAAFL.

Left to themselves, economic forces do not work out for the best except perhaps for the powerful. John Kenneth Galbraith - Foreword "Economics & The Public Purpose".

I feel that we still have to many people that are from the old United States, and are afraid of a Black person in the White House. The democratic party needs to look at the mix of Democrates and how they voted in the primaries. Im som states the white people voted very strongly for the White person, Hillary, and the black people supported Barack Obama. I want to support a democrate, but if it's Obama, McCain will most likely get many Democrstic votes, maybe even mine!

I think I'll be the 76th or 77th poster here this morning. This same edition of the Trib has an article about pending food shortages & famine in the world (including pressures on the US food supply), and as of 11:30, five people commented on that news. It's hard to keep believing that we're the greatest nation on Earth when racial topics beat readership of real news to the tune of 20 to 1.

Meghan - you hit it right on!

The t-shirts in the photo are hideous. I think their being sold at half price doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Obama....

Julie wrote:

<quoted text>
Then don't elect Rev. Wright when he runs for president.

Or the guy who sits in his church for twenty years. And calls wright his mentor, and has him title his book. Not to mention equating his relationship with Wright to the one he has with his grandmother.

But I was writing specifically on Liberation Theology, so thanks for the foolish one liners. Nothing funnier than an impatient smartass. They become the butt of their own joke.

Kingcuke wrote:

I find the different takes on the article to be very interesting as it illustrates the filters with which we all view the world through. To me the salient point of the article is identifying the widening economic divide in the US. Racism, bigotry, & misogyny have always been based on fear of loss of wherewithal. The poor are and always will be a majority, and with the continuing government policies of creating a favorable business environment for multi-national corporations the club is getting bigger every day. The debate this election should be about is what is the purpose of a nation, supporting business or supporting the principles, this nation was founded on. The beauty of the US Constitution is that despite being written by the elite of the time it empowers all of us. BTW - Capitalism does have a dark side, TNSTAAFL.
Left to themselves, economic forces do not work out for the best except perhaps for the powerful. John Kenneth Galbraith - Foreword "Economics & The Public Purpose".

If the contest were only between the corporate fascists and the honest, decent hardworking poor (straight out of central casting!) there would be a clear hero, like in a Jimmy Stewart movie. The difficulty is that so much of the debate is between industrious entrepeneurial people and lazy people. It's hard for me to get fired up about supporting people who really don't want to work, particularly since, as a woman, I've had to work a bit harder to save money since I earn less. On the other hand, I'd really like the corporations to shoulder the burden of supporting the state, since they seem to reap most of the its benefits.

orly wrote:

<quoted text>
I thought this article was rather sympathetic to whites who aren't voting for Obama in droves (the white elite are) but are voting for Hillary. I fully understand why African Americans are voting for Obama, and I think we've all begun to acknowledge it's because he is half black. With that said, I'm not going to vote for him, I'll likely hold my nose and vote for McCain. If a third party candidate had a shot, I'd gladly vote for Ron Paul.

The reason blacks are voting for Obama is because he is the most intelligent candidate that we have had in a long time - he just happens to be black - not half-black. This is the same reason other races are voting for Obama - INTELLIGENCE - something that still seems to be amiss in the white comments on this board today. When are you going to learn that it is about intelligence - not race - when are you going to learn??? Your ignorance is astounding -Also - the only reason the term mixed, half-black came into being was that so many white high-end career women were running to have babies with black men - they had to protect their status in the white community - now they want a new term "mixed" to apply to blacks - remember a black was a black until the 1990-2000 era(actually it was the "N" word- remember??)
People want successful change - if a black happens to be the best suited to get us back on the track - THEN LET HIM!!!